Yesterday morning, the U.S. government released its initial report on the economy in the second quarter of 2015; and as measured by Gross Domestic Product (total consumer and government spending+business inventories+the net of imports and exports). But, also with this reporting, the Bureau of Economic Analysis -- the group that develops the GDP numbers -- will apply the new formulation for how the GDP is calculated and will apply those changes back to 2012. Many economists predicted that recalculations would smooth out the erratic swings and actually result in higher GDP growth. Boy, were they wrong.
Prior to the revised calculations, 2012 through 2014 had dismal growth rates that averaged only 2.4%. Now, with the new revisions; the average growth for those years is just 2.1%; which puts it at almost half of the average 3.97% growth rate following all previous recoveries from recessions since 1960. It also puts growth below the previously calculated average of 2.24% since the recovery started in the third quarter of 2009. Worse than that, the growth rate for the first six months sits at just 1.45% -- when averaged against just 6-tenths of a percent in the first quarter and 2.3% in the second. This is a slowing of 31% from Obama's previous 3-year average of 2.1%.
Simply, each successive year under President Obama's watch is getting weaker. Not a good trend, and it reflects on how government imposition in the economy, such as ObamaCare, is affecting economic growth.
References:
US government revises earlier GDPs to fix anomalies in reporting: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/30/us-government-revises-earlier-gdps-to-fix-anomalies-in-reporting.html
Our dismal GDP numbers: Under Obama US stuck in slow growth rut: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/29/our-dismal-gdp-numbers-under-obama-us-stuck-in-slow-growth-rut.html
Here are the revisions made to GDP growth over the last three years: http://www.businessinsider.com/q2-2015-gdp-revisions-2015-7
Friday, July 31, 2015
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Why ObamaCare May Kill Jobs For Older Low-Wage Workers
Starting January 1st, 2015 the employer mandate of ObamaCare went into effect. For those who don't know, this is a requirement that a business with 50 or more full time workers -- those working 30 hours or more a week -- offer health insurance to its employees and their dependents. Dependents, as defined by the law, are children and not spouses. Further, if an employee's total household income is between 100 and 400% of the poverty level, the employee cannot be charged any more than 9.5% of their income for coverage. Therefore, for the first time in U.S. history, employers are required to ask for an employee's spouse's salary so they can determine how much they will have to pay for their insurance. Also, if the employer fails at any of the above, a $2000 annual fine (tax) will be imposed for every employee at the business.
The way health insurance works, the younger healthier insured pay less than the older and potentially more costly. Women, too, are more expensive to cover because of different health examinations and the potential of pregnancy. When a company needs to establish a group plan, the contracted insurance company needs to know all it can about the sex and age of the insured. Some might require an annual physical paid by the employer before the cost of their insurance can be determined.
Companies are going to find out that having too many low-paid, older workers is going to cost them money. For example, a single employee aged 55, and making less than $30,000 would have the 9.5% rule applied. While a single person in their twenties might only cost $1500 a year to insure, this 55-year-old would cost at least $4,300. In that case, the employer would be on the hook for $1,450 of it; and the employee would pay $2,850. Whereas the young 20-something would not be subsidized at all. Of course, this assumes that the company achieve that low of a cost to insure a 55-year-old. Chances are, the smaller the company, the higher the cost of per employee insurance. So, they could be on the hook for double or even triple that $1,400.
The fact is simple. Employers now have an incentive not to hire or keep older, low-income workers. Another unintended consequence of such a wide sweeping law.
References:
Employer Mandate: https://www.uschamber.com/health-reform/employer-mandate
Health Insurance Coverage for 50- to 64-Year-Olds - AARP: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/health/Health-Insurance-Coverage-for-50-64-year-olds-insight-AARP-ppi-health.pdf
pb
The way health insurance works, the younger healthier insured pay less than the older and potentially more costly. Women, too, are more expensive to cover because of different health examinations and the potential of pregnancy. When a company needs to establish a group plan, the contracted insurance company needs to know all it can about the sex and age of the insured. Some might require an annual physical paid by the employer before the cost of their insurance can be determined.
Companies are going to find out that having too many low-paid, older workers is going to cost them money. For example, a single employee aged 55, and making less than $30,000 would have the 9.5% rule applied. While a single person in their twenties might only cost $1500 a year to insure, this 55-year-old would cost at least $4,300. In that case, the employer would be on the hook for $1,450 of it; and the employee would pay $2,850. Whereas the young 20-something would not be subsidized at all. Of course, this assumes that the company achieve that low of a cost to insure a 55-year-old. Chances are, the smaller the company, the higher the cost of per employee insurance. So, they could be on the hook for double or even triple that $1,400.
The fact is simple. Employers now have an incentive not to hire or keep older, low-income workers. Another unintended consequence of such a wide sweeping law.
References:
Employer Mandate: https://www.uschamber.com/health-reform/employer-mandate
Health Insurance Coverage for 50- to 64-Year-Olds - AARP: http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/health/Health-Insurance-Coverage-for-50-64-year-olds-insight-AARP-ppi-health.pdf
pb
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Hillary's Capital Gains Plan Ignores Reality
In another misguided attempt to solve a problem by raising taxes on the rich, Hillary Clinton is proposing to place heavy penalties on those in the top 39.6% tax bracket for trading less than a year, or even 6 years; claiming that it would stop "very short-term trading" that takes place over "days, hours, or even milliseconds". So, she's proposing the following tax plan as shown in this chart from CNBC in the hopes that rich people will hang on to their stocks longer:
To the uniformed and those ignorant of stock market investing and its the associated taxes, punishing the rich in the first two years and, then, provide a declining tax penalty in years 3 through 6 will actually accelerate short-term trading.
Under the current tax law, if you sell a stock or other capital asset in less than a year after acquiring it, you pay ordinary income tax on that transaction. For those in the top bracket, that's 39.6% or just the same as in Hillary's proposal. Yet, despite this fact, the buying and selling of stocks still does happen at a rate of "days, hours, or even milliseconds". So, where is the real deterrent in Hillary's plan? At least under the current law, there is an incentive to hold a stock for more than a year because the capital gains tax drops to 20% for those in all tax brackets in year two.
But, here's the biggest problem. With no tax advantage in the first two years to hold onto a stock, there's no reason not to sell in the first year; assuming that there are good profits to be taken advantage of. The same is true for the successive years after year 2. Her decline in the tax rate each year is less than the rate of increase of inflation. Thus, if a stock increases at a rate that is less than the rate of inflation after two years, the investor is actually losing money; especially, if the sole intent is to take advantage of a slightly lower tax rate. Therefore, the chances are high that the smart investor will probably sell rather than take the chance of losing money in the future. At least the 20% tax rate reduces that risk.
Lastly, there are millions of Americans that aren't in the top tax bracket but will be hurt by this stupidity. These are average people with managed 401K's and mutual funds. With the higher tax rate, the cost to manage those funds increases while, at the same time, return on that money is reduced. This from a person who, in 1978, thought it was fine to trade in cattle futures over a period of just 10 months and turn $1000 into $100,000.
This whole thing is another attempt at taxing the rich under the guise of stopping short-term trading. However, increasing taxes on the rich for stock market trades only means the rich will go elsewhere with their money, such as long-term real estate investments where, after 5 years, only the profits will be taxed at 20%, and with a lot less risk. This will only help to stagnate growth in the stock market; which has, in the last 6 years, provided much income and tax revenues for the federal government.
References:
Hillary Clinton proposes sharp increase in short-term capital gains taxes: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/24/hillary-clinton-proposes-sharp-increase-in-short-term-capital-gains-taxes.html
Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
9 Ways to Invest Without Putting Money Into the Stock Market: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/06/24/9-ways-to-invest-without-putting-money-into-the-stock-market/
Under the current tax law, if you sell a stock or other capital asset in less than a year after acquiring it, you pay ordinary income tax on that transaction. For those in the top bracket, that's 39.6% or just the same as in Hillary's proposal. Yet, despite this fact, the buying and selling of stocks still does happen at a rate of "days, hours, or even milliseconds". So, where is the real deterrent in Hillary's plan? At least under the current law, there is an incentive to hold a stock for more than a year because the capital gains tax drops to 20% for those in all tax brackets in year two.
But, here's the biggest problem. With no tax advantage in the first two years to hold onto a stock, there's no reason not to sell in the first year; assuming that there are good profits to be taken advantage of. The same is true for the successive years after year 2. Her decline in the tax rate each year is less than the rate of increase of inflation. Thus, if a stock increases at a rate that is less than the rate of inflation after two years, the investor is actually losing money; especially, if the sole intent is to take advantage of a slightly lower tax rate. Therefore, the chances are high that the smart investor will probably sell rather than take the chance of losing money in the future. At least the 20% tax rate reduces that risk.
Lastly, there are millions of Americans that aren't in the top tax bracket but will be hurt by this stupidity. These are average people with managed 401K's and mutual funds. With the higher tax rate, the cost to manage those funds increases while, at the same time, return on that money is reduced. This from a person who, in 1978, thought it was fine to trade in cattle futures over a period of just 10 months and turn $1000 into $100,000.
This whole thing is another attempt at taxing the rich under the guise of stopping short-term trading. However, increasing taxes on the rich for stock market trades only means the rich will go elsewhere with their money, such as long-term real estate investments where, after 5 years, only the profits will be taxed at 20%, and with a lot less risk. This will only help to stagnate growth in the stock market; which has, in the last 6 years, provided much income and tax revenues for the federal government.
References:
Hillary Clinton proposes sharp increase in short-term capital gains taxes: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/24/hillary-clinton-proposes-sharp-increase-in-short-term-capital-gains-taxes.html
Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
9 Ways to Invest Without Putting Money Into the Stock Market: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/06/24/9-ways-to-invest-without-putting-money-into-the-stock-market/
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
The Arms Race Begins In The Middle East
Following the Iran nuke deal, President Obama said "This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and
meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and
more secure...no deal means the chance of more war in the Middle East".
Well, if that was true, why is Obama now providing $3 billion in military aid to Israel and preparing to provide a missile defense system to Saudi Arabia; and perhaps others in the region? At the same time Russia has inked a deal with Iran to provide them with a missile defense system.
These two actions by the U.S. and Russia show that war is being assumed as a potential reality. This isn't peace. I would suspect its only a matter of time before Saudis move to get their own nukes and their own ballistic missiles in order to have retaliatory capability against Iran. Others in the Middle East are sure to follow. Also, it has long been known that Israel already has nukes. Will they now build or buy their own ballistic missiles? Expect everyone in the neighborhood to beef up their armies and conventional weapons capabilities.
The world is now...safer? More secure?
References:
Iran Nuclear Deal: President Obama Says Deal Makes World 'Safer and More Secure': http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/iran-nuclear-deal-president-obama-deliver-statement-historic-accord-n391646
U.S. to help Arab states to develop ballistic missile defense capability: http://missilethreat.com/u-s-to-help-arab-states-to-develop-ballistic-missile-defense-capability/
Russia Confirms Sale of S-300 Missile Systems To Iran: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2015/05/26/russia-confirms-sale-missile-systems-iran/27970269/
Saudi Arabia considers its own nuclear options after Iran deal: http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-considers-own-nuclear-options-iran-deal-131228648.html
Nuclear weapons and Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
Iran Nuclear Pact Could Spark Buildup Of Conventional Weapons: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/15/423101307/iran-nuclear-pact-could-spark-buildup-of-conventional-weapons
Well, if that was true, why is Obama now providing $3 billion in military aid to Israel and preparing to provide a missile defense system to Saudi Arabia; and perhaps others in the region? At the same time Russia has inked a deal with Iran to provide them with a missile defense system.
These two actions by the U.S. and Russia show that war is being assumed as a potential reality. This isn't peace. I would suspect its only a matter of time before Saudis move to get their own nukes and their own ballistic missiles in order to have retaliatory capability against Iran. Others in the Middle East are sure to follow. Also, it has long been known that Israel already has nukes. Will they now build or buy their own ballistic missiles? Expect everyone in the neighborhood to beef up their armies and conventional weapons capabilities.
The world is now...safer? More secure?
References:
Iran Nuclear Deal: President Obama Says Deal Makes World 'Safer and More Secure': http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/iran-nuclear-deal-president-obama-deliver-statement-historic-accord-n391646
U.S. to help Arab states to develop ballistic missile defense capability: http://missilethreat.com/u-s-to-help-arab-states-to-develop-ballistic-missile-defense-capability/
Russia Confirms Sale of S-300 Missile Systems To Iran: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2015/05/26/russia-confirms-sale-missile-systems-iran/27970269/
Saudi Arabia considers its own nuclear options after Iran deal: http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-considers-own-nuclear-options-iran-deal-131228648.html
Nuclear weapons and Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
Iran Nuclear Pact Could Spark Buildup Of Conventional Weapons: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/15/423101307/iran-nuclear-pact-could-spark-buildup-of-conventional-weapons
Monday, July 27, 2015
Is New York Trying To Kill Fast Food Businesses?
It's no secret that many in the U.S. -- especially those in the liberal political class -- blame fast food restaurants for America's obesity problem.
It's no wonder then, that New York State's proposed minimum wage increase to $15 will only be applied to fast food operations throughout the State. The primary argument for doing so won't be about obesity (wink...wink!), but instead, because McDonald's and Burger King underpay their employees. New York must pay out millions of dollars each year in various forms of welfare for these workers. Of course, the State doesn't mind that other minimum wage workers like busboys, dishwashers, hotel workers, etc. will continue to be supported with welfare payouts.
So what's the impact on, let's say, McDonald's food prices once the wage hits $15:
Simply, going to McDonald's or any other fast food store may still be fast but no longer cheap. For some people, the cost to eat there may just be too steep; especially since traditional sit-down restaurants won't be hit by the minimum wage increase. Thus, expect business declines and business closures as people relegate eating fast food to being a luxury. Make no mistake, this imposed wage is like any tax on liquor and cigarettes that is used as a means to deter the buying of those products. To me, that looks like the real intent here.
Lastly, as far as the obesity issue goes, it's not true. Seven years ago the City of Los Angeles banned any new fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles as a way of curbing the growing obesity problem in that part of the city. Obesity wasn't abated. Instead, it got worse; going from 63% to 75%. Also, regarding fast food, poverty, and welfare; this country has 45.3 million people in poverty and on welfare. The fact that there are only 3.7 million fast food workers hardly proves that the industry is placing some massive burden on the country and the State of New York; especially, since 61% of all fast food workers are part-timers working before and after school or as a means to earn some extra money.
References:
New York Plans $15-an-Hour Minimum Wage for Fast Food Workers: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/nyregion/new-york-minimum-wage-fast-food-workers.html
McDonald's Menu Pricing for New York: http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/
McDonalds Salaries in New York, City: https://www.google.com/search?q=McDonald%27s+Salaries+in+New+York+City%2C+NY+|+Glassdoor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Real Earnings: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
Cost of McDonald's Labor: https://www.minimumwage.com/2013/07/about-that-68-cent-big-mac-price-increase/
Ban on fast-food eateries in South L.A. hasn't cut obesity: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-food-study-20150319-story.html
In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5 percent, down from 15.0 percent in 2012. This was the first decrease in the poverty rate since 2006. In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/
http://www.statista.com/statistics/196630/number-of-employees-in-us-fast-food-restaurants-since-2002/Employees in the U.S. fast food restaurant industry:
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2014:http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf
pb
It's no wonder then, that New York State's proposed minimum wage increase to $15 will only be applied to fast food operations throughout the State. The primary argument for doing so won't be about obesity (wink...wink!), but instead, because McDonald's and Burger King underpay their employees. New York must pay out millions of dollars each year in various forms of welfare for these workers. Of course, the State doesn't mind that other minimum wage workers like busboys, dishwashers, hotel workers, etc. will continue to be supported with welfare payouts.
So what's the impact on, let's say, McDonald's food prices once the wage hits $15:
- A $15 minimum wage is a 71% increase from New York's current $8.75.
- That $15 wage is higher than every current McDonald's worker's pay except for Shift Manager and Store Manager; both salaried. Thus, every worker, including the salaried, will also have to see a proportionally-based 71% increase. Therefore, we can assume that whatever a McDonald's store's total cost of labor is today, it will be 71% higher once the $15 kicks in.
- According to the website MinimumWage.com, the average cost of labor for every dollar you spend at McDonald's is 32%. So, if you spend $10 today at a New York McD's, $3.20 will go to cover the cost of labor. When the 71% increase is finally applied, the cost of labor will be $2.27 higher. Or, in other words, that formerly $10 meal will then cost you $12.27 or 22.7% more. That's before any other inflation that may also affect pricing.
Simply, going to McDonald's or any other fast food store may still be fast but no longer cheap. For some people, the cost to eat there may just be too steep; especially since traditional sit-down restaurants won't be hit by the minimum wage increase. Thus, expect business declines and business closures as people relegate eating fast food to being a luxury. Make no mistake, this imposed wage is like any tax on liquor and cigarettes that is used as a means to deter the buying of those products. To me, that looks like the real intent here.
Lastly, as far as the obesity issue goes, it's not true. Seven years ago the City of Los Angeles banned any new fast food restaurants in South Los Angeles as a way of curbing the growing obesity problem in that part of the city. Obesity wasn't abated. Instead, it got worse; going from 63% to 75%. Also, regarding fast food, poverty, and welfare; this country has 45.3 million people in poverty and on welfare. The fact that there are only 3.7 million fast food workers hardly proves that the industry is placing some massive burden on the country and the State of New York; especially, since 61% of all fast food workers are part-timers working before and after school or as a means to earn some extra money.
References:
New York Plans $15-an-Hour Minimum Wage for Fast Food Workers: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/nyregion/new-york-minimum-wage-fast-food-workers.html
McDonald's Menu Pricing for New York: http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/
McDonalds Salaries in New York, City: https://www.google.com/search?q=McDonald%27s+Salaries+in+New+York+City%2C+NY+|+Glassdoor&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Real Earnings: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
Cost of McDonald's Labor: https://www.minimumwage.com/2013/07/about-that-68-cent-big-mac-price-increase/
Ban on fast-food eateries in South L.A. hasn't cut obesity: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-food-study-20150319-story.html
In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5 percent, down from 15.0 percent in 2012. This was the first decrease in the poverty rate since 2006. In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/
http://www.statista.com/statistics/196630/number-of-employees-in-us-fast-food-restaurants-since-2002/Employees in the U.S. fast food restaurant industry:
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2014:http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf
pb
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Deerfield and Lake County, Illinois and Obama's Fair Housing Plan
Nestled in Lake County Illinois, is the community of Deerfield. This is a perfect example of a city that President Obama's planned expansion of the Fair Housing Act (Affirmatively Furthering the Fair Housing Act or AFFH) is targeting with the integration of low income housing, so that the minority poor (primarily blacks) can enjoy the good life with a better environment and better schools.
Deerfield, At nearly 96% white, is only three-tens of a percent black. That's only 72 blacks out of a population of over 18,000. The median household income is more than twice the national average at $129,187. The average home is valued at $480,600; two-and-half times the value of an average home in the U.S.. It has a commuter station with trains that can whisk you away to downtown Chicago in as little as 38 minutes, sparing its residents an hour or more drive to get to the Windy City. But, here's the thing that really paints a bullseye on Deerfield for black activists and Obama's fair housing plans. Deerfield has great schools. Its high school is ranked number one in all of Lake County. Additionally, that school also ranks in the top 500 of all high schools in the nation.
Then, there's Lake County. It, too, is very white. Blacks, which make up 13% of the U.S. population, are only representative of 7.4% of Lake County's residents. Of the county's 52,000 blacks, a half are located in just two cities: Waukegan and North Chicago. This means that without those two cities, the actual black population is only 3.7% for the vast majority of the county. Lake County is one of the richest counties in the U.S.; ranked 31. It has a high number of villages and cities that are near Deerfield's affluence or higher. All of those communities have low black populations.
So, what's going to happen to the county of Lake and cities and villages like Deerfield when they attempt to comply with Obama's view of Fair Housing. Will the county and cities have to snap up very expensive properties in each of those affluent and white conclaves in order to build low income and high density housing for low income blacks and Hispanics, or lose all federal funding? Ask yourself this. Wouldn't the tens of millions of extra dollars being spent to achieve integration in upscale neighborhoods be better spent on the deficiencies of minority neighborhoods? Then, there's the targeted people themselves. How many are really going to relocate to another ghetto in a rich neighborhood that is farther from their jobs and more expensive to live in. Or, will those communities push back and tie up Obama's plans in the courts for years. This is just another liberal attack on the wealthy. Not to improve the lives of blacks and other minorities, but to lay siege on the rich strongholds in order to lower the standards of the wealthy; with very few blacks really being helped in the process.
Won't this do even more to destroy race relations in this country that have already worsened under this President's watch. Thank you Mister President!
References:
Obama: New Fair Housing rule will help further American Dream: http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34459-obama-new-fair-housing-rule-will-help-further-american-dream
The Folly Of "Fair" Housing | Hoover Institution: http://www.hoover.org/research/folly-fair-housing
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Obama's Latest Disaster: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz
Obama making bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods: http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-neighborhoods
Deerfield, Illinois: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerfield,_Illinois#Education
Deerfield High School: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerfield_High_School_%28Illinois%29
Average Income In Deerfield: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+income+deerfield+illinois&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Deerfield IL Home Prices & Home Values | Zillow: http://www.zillow.com/deerfield-il/home-values/
The Median Home Price Is $188,900: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+home+price+in+us&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Lake County Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17097.html
Waukegan Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1779293.html
North Chicago, Illinois: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Chicago,_Illinois#Demographics
Race Relations Polling: http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm
Deerfield, At nearly 96% white, is only three-tens of a percent black. That's only 72 blacks out of a population of over 18,000. The median household income is more than twice the national average at $129,187. The average home is valued at $480,600; two-and-half times the value of an average home in the U.S.. It has a commuter station with trains that can whisk you away to downtown Chicago in as little as 38 minutes, sparing its residents an hour or more drive to get to the Windy City. But, here's the thing that really paints a bullseye on Deerfield for black activists and Obama's fair housing plans. Deerfield has great schools. Its high school is ranked number one in all of Lake County. Additionally, that school also ranks in the top 500 of all high schools in the nation.
Then, there's Lake County. It, too, is very white. Blacks, which make up 13% of the U.S. population, are only representative of 7.4% of Lake County's residents. Of the county's 52,000 blacks, a half are located in just two cities: Waukegan and North Chicago. This means that without those two cities, the actual black population is only 3.7% for the vast majority of the county. Lake County is one of the richest counties in the U.S.; ranked 31. It has a high number of villages and cities that are near Deerfield's affluence or higher. All of those communities have low black populations.
So, what's going to happen to the county of Lake and cities and villages like Deerfield when they attempt to comply with Obama's view of Fair Housing. Will the county and cities have to snap up very expensive properties in each of those affluent and white conclaves in order to build low income and high density housing for low income blacks and Hispanics, or lose all federal funding? Ask yourself this. Wouldn't the tens of millions of extra dollars being spent to achieve integration in upscale neighborhoods be better spent on the deficiencies of minority neighborhoods? Then, there's the targeted people themselves. How many are really going to relocate to another ghetto in a rich neighborhood that is farther from their jobs and more expensive to live in. Or, will those communities push back and tie up Obama's plans in the courts for years. This is just another liberal attack on the wealthy. Not to improve the lives of blacks and other minorities, but to lay siege on the rich strongholds in order to lower the standards of the wealthy; with very few blacks really being helped in the process.
Won't this do even more to destroy race relations in this country that have already worsened under this President's watch. Thank you Mister President!
References:
Obama: New Fair Housing rule will help further American Dream: http://www.housingwire.com/articles/34459-obama-new-fair-housing-rule-will-help-further-american-dream
The Folly Of "Fair" Housing | Hoover Institution: http://www.hoover.org/research/folly-fair-housing
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Obama's Latest Disaster: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421389/attention-americas-suburbs-you-have-just-been-annexed-stanley-kurtz
Obama making bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods: http://thehill.com/regulation/244620-obamas-bid-to-diversify-wealthy-neighborhoods
Deerfield, Illinois: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerfield,_Illinois#Education
Deerfield High School: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerfield_High_School_%28Illinois%29
Average Income In Deerfield: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+income+deerfield+illinois&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Deerfield IL Home Prices & Home Values | Zillow: http://www.zillow.com/deerfield-il/home-values/
The Median Home Price Is $188,900: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+home+price+in+us&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Lake County Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17097.html
Waukegan Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1779293.html
North Chicago, Illinois: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Chicago,_Illinois#Demographics
Race Relations Polling: http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm
Friday, July 24, 2015
The Economy Under Obama In One Graph
 |
| Click on Chart to Enlarge |
This Federal Reserve of St. Louis graph details the year-over-year growth rate of the economy -- as measured by the percent of increase/decrease in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -- from 1930 through 2014. The gray horizontal line represents the peak economic growth under President Obama. Except for dips during the Great Depression and all the other recessions, no other time in the last 85 years has there been economic growth this low.
Simply, government regulations under Obama are killing the economy. Even when the Great Depression ended (seen on the far left of the chart), the snap back was tremendous. Then, following the 1936 recession, the snap back was even greater which is why economist's would always say -- until now -- "the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery".
The heavy-handed lending regulations under Dodd-Frank are stunting business growth. The employer mandate under ObamaCare is forcing higher costs of labor on business and, as a result, making them less likely to give normal wage increases. The same with the minimum wage increases that have been taking place in 29 states and in a growing number of cities. Obama's salaried overtime ruling will also force many companies to forgo normal wage increases. The push towards solar and wind and the elimination of coal-fired power plants is driving electricity prices higher affecting costs for consumer and businesses alike.
The list of regulations is literally endless since this President has decided to "fundamentally change" America. With growth this slow and so near the "zero" line, it would be quite easy for us to slip into recession again, should the economy start stumble.
References:
Graph: Gross Domestic Product: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=A191RP1Q027SBEA,
Red Tape Rising: Obama-Era Regulations: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/red-tape-rising-obama-era-regulation-at-the-three-year-mark
Obama's Slams Small Businesses With Excessive Regulations: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/03/24/obamas-slams-small-businesses-with-excessive-regulations
December 2014: Obama Crams Over 1200 New Regulations Just Before The New Year: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/23/obama-admin-crams-over-1200-new-regulations-just-before-the-new-year/
Fireworks Industry Bemoans Tough Obama Regulations: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fireworks-obama-regulation/2015/07/04/id/653445/
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Increasing Disinflation and the Federal Reserve is Helpless Against It
While none of us like paying higher prices for things, most economists agree that an inflation rate between 2 and 3 percent is a good thing because it shows that there is normal consumer demand for products and services.
When inflation goes above 3 percent, the economy is running too hot and those in poverty and people on fixed incomes are being hurt by high prices. In this case, our central bank, the Federal Reserve, would step in and force higher interest rates. Thus, the money supply becomes constricted and, in theory, an overheated economy will contract enough to get back into that 2-3% sweet spot.
One the other hand, when inflation is below 2%, it shows that consumer demand is too low; usually because of tepid or low wage growth. Then, sellers of products and services must compete more fiercely to attract customers by slashing prices or keeping prices low. Businesses that can't lower or hold prices would typically go under. In this situation, the Federal Reserve would normally lower interest rates to kick start a weak or weakening economy in an attempt to keep it from falling into recession and to stem any job losses and business closures.
To that latter paragraph, here is this ten-year chart from the site usinflationcalculator.com:
Since 2011, when inflation hit a peak of 3% following the 2007-2009 recession, each successive year thereafter has seen disinflation (a decline in the rate of inflation) to the point that, now, in 2015, inflation is actually slightly negative. Economists call this condition deflation. Essentially, American wages have stagnated to a point that consumers are unable to buy at the same levels as the year before. This explains why dozens of retailers are being forced to close stores. McDonald's will close 700. Walgreens 200. Staples, OfficeMax, and Office depot are closing a combined total of nearly 600 stores. Radio Shack has gone belly-up and will close 1784. With all of these store closings, plus hundreds more from other retailers not listed here (see link below), this year is beginning to look like the start of a recession.
So, what can the Federal Reserve do to avoid one? Absolutely nothing. Since the beginning of the 2007-2009 recession, the Reserve has been holding interest rates between zero and 1/4 of a percent. Therefore, there's no room to lower them in order to stimulate the economy. In fact, insanely, it appears that the Federal Reserve might actually raise interest rates. If I'm right, this action would only exacerbate disinflation because it will do the very opposite of what's needed.
References:
Chart Source: Current US Inflation Rates: 2005-2015: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/
2015 Store Closing Roundup: Radio Shack, Wet Seal, Sears, Target, etc.: http://retailindustry.about.com/od/USRetailStoreClosingInfoFAQs/fl/All-2015-Store-Closings-Stores-Closed-by-US-Retail-Industry-Chains_2.htm
Fed leaves interest rates unchanged - CNBC.com: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/17/fed-leaves-interest-rates-unchanged.html
If the Fed raises interest rates, what's your move?: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/business/2015-07-20/if-fed-raises-interest-rates-whats-your-move.html
When inflation goes above 3 percent, the economy is running too hot and those in poverty and people on fixed incomes are being hurt by high prices. In this case, our central bank, the Federal Reserve, would step in and force higher interest rates. Thus, the money supply becomes constricted and, in theory, an overheated economy will contract enough to get back into that 2-3% sweet spot.
One the other hand, when inflation is below 2%, it shows that consumer demand is too low; usually because of tepid or low wage growth. Then, sellers of products and services must compete more fiercely to attract customers by slashing prices or keeping prices low. Businesses that can't lower or hold prices would typically go under. In this situation, the Federal Reserve would normally lower interest rates to kick start a weak or weakening economy in an attempt to keep it from falling into recession and to stem any job losses and business closures.
To that latter paragraph, here is this ten-year chart from the site usinflationcalculator.com:
Since 2011, when inflation hit a peak of 3% following the 2007-2009 recession, each successive year thereafter has seen disinflation (a decline in the rate of inflation) to the point that, now, in 2015, inflation is actually slightly negative. Economists call this condition deflation. Essentially, American wages have stagnated to a point that consumers are unable to buy at the same levels as the year before. This explains why dozens of retailers are being forced to close stores. McDonald's will close 700. Walgreens 200. Staples, OfficeMax, and Office depot are closing a combined total of nearly 600 stores. Radio Shack has gone belly-up and will close 1784. With all of these store closings, plus hundreds more from other retailers not listed here (see link below), this year is beginning to look like the start of a recession.
So, what can the Federal Reserve do to avoid one? Absolutely nothing. Since the beginning of the 2007-2009 recession, the Reserve has been holding interest rates between zero and 1/4 of a percent. Therefore, there's no room to lower them in order to stimulate the economy. In fact, insanely, it appears that the Federal Reserve might actually raise interest rates. If I'm right, this action would only exacerbate disinflation because it will do the very opposite of what's needed.
References:
Chart Source: Current US Inflation Rates: 2005-2015: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/
2015 Store Closing Roundup: Radio Shack, Wet Seal, Sears, Target, etc.: http://retailindustry.about.com/od/USRetailStoreClosingInfoFAQs/fl/All-2015-Store-Closings-Stores-Closed-by-US-Retail-Industry-Chains_2.htm
Fed leaves interest rates unchanged - CNBC.com: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/17/fed-leaves-interest-rates-unchanged.html
If the Fed raises interest rates, what's your move?: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/business/2015-07-20/if-fed-raises-interest-rates-whats-your-move.html
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Poverty Under Obama
Prior to the Great Recession, poverty in America was decreasing.
From 2006 to 2007, the number in poverty fell from 38.8 million by almost another 800,000. Then, in 2008, at the height of the recession, it was back up to 39.4 million. By the time Barack Obama took office in 2009, 42.9 million were in poverty. By 2012, after three years under Obama, a record 48.5 million of our citizens were poor. Then, in 2013, 4 years past the end of the recession, the number finally started to fall; down to 45.3 or, roughly 14.5% of the total population.
While the 2014 numbers won't be out until the fall, it is highly likely that the number of people in poverty will still be 1-1/2 to 2 million higher than when President Obama took office.
The ugly fact is that we are 6 years past the end of the recession and we still have 45 million poor in this country (assuming a fall to 14% in the 2014 population of 320 million); and, millions more that are close to that level but aren't officially counted as such. Even though that's 3.5 million less than the high of 48.5 million in 2012, it is still 2.1 million higher than when Obama took office, and still almost 6 million higher than before the recession started.
When President Obama held his recent 3-day summit on poverty, I'm certain that record was never discussed, nor were his policies that have continued to keep the rate so high. Obviously, his much touted creation of 18 million jobs hasn't significantly helped the poor that much. Especially, when most of those new jobs are low paying.
References:
Page 21: Census Bureau Report: 2006 and 2007 Poverty: https://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/acs-09.pdf
Page 2: Census Bureau Report: 2008 and 2009 Poverty: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-1.pdf
Page 1: Census Bureau Report: 2010 and 2011 Poverty: https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-01.pdf
Page 1: Census Bureau Report: from 2000 to 2012 Poverty: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-01.pdf
Census Bureau: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013: http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.html
FUN FACT: More net jobs have been created under Obama than both Bushes combined: http://www.eclectablog.com/2014/10/fun-fact-more-net-jobs-have-been-created-under-obama-than-both-bushes-combined.html
Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html
pb
From 2006 to 2007, the number in poverty fell from 38.8 million by almost another 800,000. Then, in 2008, at the height of the recession, it was back up to 39.4 million. By the time Barack Obama took office in 2009, 42.9 million were in poverty. By 2012, after three years under Obama, a record 48.5 million of our citizens were poor. Then, in 2013, 4 years past the end of the recession, the number finally started to fall; down to 45.3 or, roughly 14.5% of the total population.
While the 2014 numbers won't be out until the fall, it is highly likely that the number of people in poverty will still be 1-1/2 to 2 million higher than when President Obama took office.
The ugly fact is that we are 6 years past the end of the recession and we still have 45 million poor in this country (assuming a fall to 14% in the 2014 population of 320 million); and, millions more that are close to that level but aren't officially counted as such. Even though that's 3.5 million less than the high of 48.5 million in 2012, it is still 2.1 million higher than when Obama took office, and still almost 6 million higher than before the recession started.
When President Obama held his recent 3-day summit on poverty, I'm certain that record was never discussed, nor were his policies that have continued to keep the rate so high. Obviously, his much touted creation of 18 million jobs hasn't significantly helped the poor that much. Especially, when most of those new jobs are low paying.
References:
Page 21: Census Bureau Report: 2006 and 2007 Poverty: https://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/acs-09.pdf
Page 2: Census Bureau Report: 2008 and 2009 Poverty: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-1.pdf
Page 1: Census Bureau Report: 2010 and 2011 Poverty: https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-01.pdf
Page 1: Census Bureau Report: from 2000 to 2012 Poverty: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-01.pdf
Census Bureau: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013: http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.html
FUN FACT: More net jobs have been created under Obama than both Bushes combined: http://www.eclectablog.com/2014/10/fun-fact-more-net-jobs-have-been-created-under-obama-than-both-bushes-combined.html
Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html
pb
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
U.S. Is Now Borrowing To Pay Interest On Its Debt
Last year, our national debt increased by $484 billion. At the same time, we paid $430 billion in interest. Now, because the debt increase was much higher than the interest due, we had to borrow $430 billion to cover the interest payments. On top of all that we had to take on an additional $54 billion dollars to cover the rest of our spending.
This is a bad situation since we are now creating even more debt to pay for the prior debt. This is a death spiral. If we continue on this way, our debt will start to grow exponentially; making it very difficult to recover without extreme cuts in federal spending and high increases in taxes for everyone.
If you think this is bad, just imagine what Greece is going through.
References:
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Greece faces tough conditions under deal with euro zone: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/13/us-eurozone-greece-idUSKBN0P40EO20150713
This is a bad situation since we are now creating even more debt to pay for the prior debt. This is a death spiral. If we continue on this way, our debt will start to grow exponentially; making it very difficult to recover without extreme cuts in federal spending and high increases in taxes for everyone.
If you think this is bad, just imagine what Greece is going through.
References:
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Greece faces tough conditions under deal with euro zone: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/13/us-eurozone-greece-idUSKBN0P40EO20150713
Monday, July 20, 2015
Let's Put a Virtual Wall on Our Southern Border
In the 1930's, as a result of the Great Depression, high unemployment, and very high poverty, juvenile delinquency was running rampant. America's former top FBI agent Melvin Purvis -- the guy who tracked down John Dillinger -- went to the radio airways to i interest America's youth in a club called the Junior G-Men. As members, American kids were enlisted to be the extended eyes and ears of the police; all at no cost to the municipal, state, or federal governments.
With social media today, why couldn't we do the same thing by building a "virtual" wall on our southern border to stop illegal immigration. After all, it is a well known fact that we can't monitor all 1900+ miles 24/7, without hiring thousand of additional Border Patrol Agents. Thus, the suggested solution has been to build a physical wall across all 1900 miles. As ugly as that would be.
Simply, repeat the Junior G-Men program. Put bullet-proof cameras on high poles along the border and allow individual internet access to each of them. Those logged in can then notify the Border Patrol whenever they see anyone attempting to cross. A trial program could be used to cover a normal hotspot to see if a system like this would work. I'm quite sure that involving the public and social media in the endeavor would create high interest.
References:
Junior G-Men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_G-Men
With social media today, why couldn't we do the same thing by building a "virtual" wall on our southern border to stop illegal immigration. After all, it is a well known fact that we can't monitor all 1900+ miles 24/7, without hiring thousand of additional Border Patrol Agents. Thus, the suggested solution has been to build a physical wall across all 1900 miles. As ugly as that would be.
Simply, repeat the Junior G-Men program. Put bullet-proof cameras on high poles along the border and allow individual internet access to each of them. Those logged in can then notify the Border Patrol whenever they see anyone attempting to cross. A trial program could be used to cover a normal hotspot to see if a system like this would work. I'm quite sure that involving the public and social media in the endeavor would create high interest.
References:
Junior G-Men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_G-Men
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Hillary's Corporate Profit Sharing Plan
Recently, Hillary Clinton announced some bullet points from her proposed economic plan; should she become President. One element of the plan was this:
This is pure left-wing, socialist dribble. Let's just force companies to pay people more; I suppose with tax penalties.
In the corporate world, people's jobs and their salaries are their reward for profits. When companies are profitable, they hire more people and typically hand out raises. Generally, speaking, those standouts, the ones that really did help the company generate more profits, are rewarded with even larger raises, bonuses, or promotions. After all, a janitor sweeping floors has very little to do with someone making a decision to sell a strong product like an Apple iPad, but the designer certainly does.
The latest Hillary idea also shows her ignorance of how corporations use profits. Profits help companies retire debt and other liabilities. They are used to expand Research and Development and the business itself. Some are set aside to help weather temporary losses of business; as was the case in the years 2007-2009 during the Great Recession and the recession following 9/11. Forcing corporations to give more profits to their employees, merely jeopardizes future stability and growth and could actually stall the economy. It may also force corporations to leave the country.
Lastly, a point about her "record profits" statement. This is another Hillary lie. In 2014, corporate profits fell by 8%. This was the biggest drop since the peak recession year of 2008. In the first quarter of this year, profits declined by 8.7%.
References:
Clinton unveils economic plan, calls for corporate profit sharing: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-economy-speech/
Economic News: Consumer Cheer Rises, But Corporate Profits Fall: http://news.investors.com/economy/032715-745409-economic-news-consumer-sentiment-up-corporate-profits-down.htm
The GDP report also showed after-tax corporate profits declined 8.7 percent. That was the largest drop in a year and the second quarterly fall: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/29/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN0OE0BF20150529
"Hard working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate earnings they helped produce."So, if employees should share in record earnings, shouldn't they also share in losses? After all, using Hillary's logic, a loss in profits is also something "they helped produce".
This is pure left-wing, socialist dribble. Let's just force companies to pay people more; I suppose with tax penalties.
In the corporate world, people's jobs and their salaries are their reward for profits. When companies are profitable, they hire more people and typically hand out raises. Generally, speaking, those standouts, the ones that really did help the company generate more profits, are rewarded with even larger raises, bonuses, or promotions. After all, a janitor sweeping floors has very little to do with someone making a decision to sell a strong product like an Apple iPad, but the designer certainly does.
The latest Hillary idea also shows her ignorance of how corporations use profits. Profits help companies retire debt and other liabilities. They are used to expand Research and Development and the business itself. Some are set aside to help weather temporary losses of business; as was the case in the years 2007-2009 during the Great Recession and the recession following 9/11. Forcing corporations to give more profits to their employees, merely jeopardizes future stability and growth and could actually stall the economy. It may also force corporations to leave the country.
Lastly, a point about her "record profits" statement. This is another Hillary lie. In 2014, corporate profits fell by 8%. This was the biggest drop since the peak recession year of 2008. In the first quarter of this year, profits declined by 8.7%.
References:
Clinton unveils economic plan, calls for corporate profit sharing: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/13/hillary-clinton-economy-speech/
Economic News: Consumer Cheer Rises, But Corporate Profits Fall: http://news.investors.com/economy/032715-745409-economic-news-consumer-sentiment-up-corporate-profits-down.htm
The GDP report also showed after-tax corporate profits declined 8.7 percent. That was the largest drop in a year and the second quarterly fall: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/29/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN0OE0BF20150529
Friday, July 17, 2015
Proof: Raising the Minimum Wage Doesn't Raise Overall Wages
Many Democrats believe that raising the minimum wage will help improve salaries for everyone. In fact, a year ago last March, President Obama went to Connecticut where he gave his speech focusing in on the minimum wage called "It's Time To Give America A Raise". Note that he said give "America" a raise and not just the lowest paid workers.
Well, this year, 29 states followed the President's suggestion and they now have a minimum wage above the Federal level of $7.25.
So, this begs the question: Did America get a raise? Not based on the last jobs report.
In the last three months, the average hourly wage went up a whole 6 cents from April's $24.89 to $24.95 in June. In fact, June's wage remained the same as May's. When annualized, this is a 1% increase. That's a rate that is half the normal 2% growth that this country has seen since the end of the recession, and a third to a fourth of the normal wage growth before the recession and before the 40% hike to the current $7.25 in the years 2007 to 2009 (see data link below).
What liberals and the President don't seem to understand is that raising the minimum wage actually has a negative impact on other, non-minimum-wage earners. Forcing an employer to pay a higher minimum just puts the employer in the position of not being able to hand out normal raises. Thus, other employees are being punished by this government action by lawmakers who, generally, never ran a business and don't seem to understand how they must struggle whenever higher wages are thrust upon them.
References:
President Obama: It's Time To Give America A Raise: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/05/president-obama-its-time-give-america-raise
The Minimum Wage By State in 2015: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx
June's Employment Report - Table B: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Year-Over-Year Wage Growth Since 2007: http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/hourly-wage-growth/
Well, this year, 29 states followed the President's suggestion and they now have a minimum wage above the Federal level of $7.25.
So, this begs the question: Did America get a raise? Not based on the last jobs report.
In the last three months, the average hourly wage went up a whole 6 cents from April's $24.89 to $24.95 in June. In fact, June's wage remained the same as May's. When annualized, this is a 1% increase. That's a rate that is half the normal 2% growth that this country has seen since the end of the recession, and a third to a fourth of the normal wage growth before the recession and before the 40% hike to the current $7.25 in the years 2007 to 2009 (see data link below).
What liberals and the President don't seem to understand is that raising the minimum wage actually has a negative impact on other, non-minimum-wage earners. Forcing an employer to pay a higher minimum just puts the employer in the position of not being able to hand out normal raises. Thus, other employees are being punished by this government action by lawmakers who, generally, never ran a business and don't seem to understand how they must struggle whenever higher wages are thrust upon them.
References:
President Obama: It's Time To Give America A Raise: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/05/president-obama-its-time-give-america-raise
The Minimum Wage By State in 2015: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx
June's Employment Report - Table B: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Year-Over-Year Wage Growth Since 2007: http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/hourly-wage-growth/
Thursday, July 16, 2015
"SnapBack" Sanctions: The Fatal Flaw In The Iran Nuke Deal
Once the deal is officially sanctioned by the U.N., U.S, European, and U.N. sanctions -- other than those imposed on the importation of conventional weapons and ballistic missile parts - will be lifted, in stages over 6 months, in return for good behavior. As a result, Iran will have access to $100 billion in frozen assets in Europe and the United States and can start exporting an estimated $40-50 billion in oil per year. In addition, there are numerous, less-sexy, sanctions that will also be lifted. Of course, the deal also insures that there is the possibility of the re-institution of sanctions (referred to as snapbacks); should Iran violate any of its agreed upon restrictions over the next 15 years. Sanctions that have been severely hurting Iran's economy.
Now, here's the flaw.
According to an excellent article written by Robert Satloff for the "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy" (link below), the snapback of sanctions is not applicable to any existing state-to-state or private international trading contracts that are in effect at the time when snapback's are to be applied. Thus Iran will be able to repatriate those $100 billion in assets and protect them. Or, it could set up very long term contracts with entities outside of its borders for the management of those assets and they would, under the deal, also be protected. The same with oil. They could set up 30-year deals with countries to buy their oil. Thus, again, sidestepping snapback sanctions. So, in effect, the snapback clause of this agreement gives Iran a means of avoiding future sanctions by merely setting up contracts that are long enough in their terms to allow it to resume its nuke program and bring it to fruition.
Any remaining snapbacks will also fail because the deal requires a unanimous vote in the United Nations Security Council to reinstate sanctions. This is another problem. Two permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China, are very friendly with Iran -- they have already created a military pact with each other to fight Western sanctions -- and they are not necessarily friends with either the U.S. or Europe. It only takes one of those two countries to use their veto power and sanctions won't be reimposed. A fact that Iran has probably been counting on throughout the negotiation process.
If I'm right, my guess is that Iran will have protected itself against the snapback of most, if not all, sanctions in as little as two years. At least the major ones. At that point, they will be free to violate the deal and resume their nuke program with more money than they had before. Money that will only accelerate their bomb making capabilities and, per the deal, there is nothing Europe and the U.S. can legally do about it.
References:
Robert Satloff: What's Really Wrong with the Iran Nuclear Deal: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/whats-really-wrong-with-the-iran-nuclear-deal
Before the economic sanctions are lifted, the IAEA will have to confirm that Iran has fulfilled certain technical steps and reported them to the UN Security Council: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.665945
Iran deal announced, gets over $100 billion in sanctioned assets: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/14/iran-deal-announced-gets-over-100-billion-in-sanctioned-assets/
Iran nuclear deal: world powers reach historic agreement to lift sanctions: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-programme-world-powers-historic-deal-lift-sanctions
Members of United Nations Security Council: http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
Iran-Russia-China Axis to Fight Western Sanctions: http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-russia-china-axis-to-fight-western-sanctions/5400429
Now, here's the flaw.
According to an excellent article written by Robert Satloff for the "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy" (link below), the snapback of sanctions is not applicable to any existing state-to-state or private international trading contracts that are in effect at the time when snapback's are to be applied. Thus Iran will be able to repatriate those $100 billion in assets and protect them. Or, it could set up very long term contracts with entities outside of its borders for the management of those assets and they would, under the deal, also be protected. The same with oil. They could set up 30-year deals with countries to buy their oil. Thus, again, sidestepping snapback sanctions. So, in effect, the snapback clause of this agreement gives Iran a means of avoiding future sanctions by merely setting up contracts that are long enough in their terms to allow it to resume its nuke program and bring it to fruition.
Any remaining snapbacks will also fail because the deal requires a unanimous vote in the United Nations Security Council to reinstate sanctions. This is another problem. Two permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China, are very friendly with Iran -- they have already created a military pact with each other to fight Western sanctions -- and they are not necessarily friends with either the U.S. or Europe. It only takes one of those two countries to use their veto power and sanctions won't be reimposed. A fact that Iran has probably been counting on throughout the negotiation process.
If I'm right, my guess is that Iran will have protected itself against the snapback of most, if not all, sanctions in as little as two years. At least the major ones. At that point, they will be free to violate the deal and resume their nuke program with more money than they had before. Money that will only accelerate their bomb making capabilities and, per the deal, there is nothing Europe and the U.S. can legally do about it.
References:
Robert Satloff: What's Really Wrong with the Iran Nuclear Deal: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/whats-really-wrong-with-the-iran-nuclear-deal
Before the economic sanctions are lifted, the IAEA will have to confirm that Iran has fulfilled certain technical steps and reported them to the UN Security Council: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.665945
Iran deal announced, gets over $100 billion in sanctioned assets: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/14/iran-deal-announced-gets-over-100-billion-in-sanctioned-assets/
Iran nuclear deal: world powers reach historic agreement to lift sanctions: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-programme-world-powers-historic-deal-lift-sanctions
Members of United Nations Security Council: http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
Iran-Russia-China Axis to Fight Western Sanctions: http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-russia-china-axis-to-fight-western-sanctions/5400429
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Chicago's 'Netflix' and Other Taxes Will Only Drive More People Out Of The City
Last year, Chicago grew by 82 residents. An amazingly low number when you consider that a city of 2.723 million residents should have produced at least 35,000 babies. That's assuming that Chicago matches the average birth rate in America which stands at 1.3% of the population. By only growing by 82 residents, the city actually lost more than 35,000 people in one year's time.
Steeped in pension debt, Chicago is trying to bail itself out through higher taxes and not through real pension reforms. The more the city taxes its residents, the more they will leave, and those leaving are generally those who can afford to move somewhere else; resulting in a city with an increasing percentage of poor and low income residents. Thus, tax hikes tend to fall short of their projections; leaving the City to find even more things to tax.
This is a death spiral. Chicago, just like now-bankrupt Detroit, saw its peak population in the 1950's. After years of Democratic control, Chicago, like Detroit, gave away generous pension benefits and early retirement to too many of its city workers. Now, there are not enough revenues to cover the mistakes of the past.
Last year, the City slapped a 9% tax on all business and residential telephone services and, all indications are, the projected revenues will fall short. Really? Chicago just lost 35,000+ residents who took their phones and spending elsewhere.
So, now, they have come up with a new tax revenue scheme: the so-called 'Netflix' tax. In actuality, its part of a 9% tax on all amusements which has now been amended to include streaming Internet entertainment video services like Netflix and Vudu, and a higher tax on cable television (which had previously been 3%). In addition, the City's parking tax has been upped from 20% to 22% during the week, and on the weekend, the tax is raised from 18% to 20%. The tax on leased vehicles has also been raised from 8% to 9%. Also, skyboxes at the City's stadiums will be hit with the 9% tax. Some might not find all these new amusement taxes very amusing and just decide to call someplace else home.
It's just a matter of time before Chicago has nothing left to tax and not enough people to collect those taxes from. The pension problem just get bigger as more workers retire and live longer; while the City's tax base gets increasingly smaller. Surely, this is exactly Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I smell bankruptcy. Don't you?
References:
Finance Committee approves Emanuel's $62.4 million tax package: http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/154153/finance-committee-approves-emanuels-62-4-million-tax-package
Chicago finds new tax stream: Netflix, Spotify, online gambling: http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/02/media/chicago-streaming-tax/
Chicago's Population Grew by Only 82 Residents in One Year: Census: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicagos-Population-Growth-Slows-Dramatically-304555131.html
Chicago and Detroit's Declining Populations: Chart: https://karlheubaum.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/chicago-and-detroit-populations.png?w=625 Source article: http://karlheubaum.com/2013/02/10/chicagos-declining-population/
Five Reasons Chicago Is in Worse Shape Than Detroit: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/how-chicago-city-of-junk-just-moved-a-little-closer-to-detroit
Steeped in pension debt, Chicago is trying to bail itself out through higher taxes and not through real pension reforms. The more the city taxes its residents, the more they will leave, and those leaving are generally those who can afford to move somewhere else; resulting in a city with an increasing percentage of poor and low income residents. Thus, tax hikes tend to fall short of their projections; leaving the City to find even more things to tax.
This is a death spiral. Chicago, just like now-bankrupt Detroit, saw its peak population in the 1950's. After years of Democratic control, Chicago, like Detroit, gave away generous pension benefits and early retirement to too many of its city workers. Now, there are not enough revenues to cover the mistakes of the past.
Last year, the City slapped a 9% tax on all business and residential telephone services and, all indications are, the projected revenues will fall short. Really? Chicago just lost 35,000+ residents who took their phones and spending elsewhere.
So, now, they have come up with a new tax revenue scheme: the so-called 'Netflix' tax. In actuality, its part of a 9% tax on all amusements which has now been amended to include streaming Internet entertainment video services like Netflix and Vudu, and a higher tax on cable television (which had previously been 3%). In addition, the City's parking tax has been upped from 20% to 22% during the week, and on the weekend, the tax is raised from 18% to 20%. The tax on leased vehicles has also been raised from 8% to 9%. Also, skyboxes at the City's stadiums will be hit with the 9% tax. Some might not find all these new amusement taxes very amusing and just decide to call someplace else home.
It's just a matter of time before Chicago has nothing left to tax and not enough people to collect those taxes from. The pension problem just get bigger as more workers retire and live longer; while the City's tax base gets increasingly smaller. Surely, this is exactly Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I smell bankruptcy. Don't you?
References:
Finance Committee approves Emanuel's $62.4 million tax package: http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/154153/finance-committee-approves-emanuels-62-4-million-tax-package
Chicago finds new tax stream: Netflix, Spotify, online gambling: http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/02/media/chicago-streaming-tax/
Chicago's Population Grew by Only 82 Residents in One Year: Census: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Chicagos-Population-Growth-Slows-Dramatically-304555131.html
Chicago and Detroit's Declining Populations: Chart: https://karlheubaum.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/chicago-and-detroit-populations.png?w=625 Source article: http://karlheubaum.com/2013/02/10/chicagos-declining-population/
Five Reasons Chicago Is in Worse Shape Than Detroit: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/how-chicago-city-of-junk-just-moved-a-little-closer-to-detroit
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Why I know the Iran Deal is a Bad Deal
Because Obama says it's a good deal.
How can anyone trust someone who lies incessantly to the American people: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
How can anyone trust someone who lies incessantly to the American people: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
In Just 2 weeks, 10 Deaths and 2 FBI Failures
Just hours after Dylann Roof killed 9 innocents at the Emanuel AME Church, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blamed the deaths on the lack of tighter gun controls. Now, we find out that Dylann Roof -- under current gun laws -- should never have been allowed to buy the gun in the first place. Because of human error in the FBI's background check process, Roof's prior felony drug conviction was not flagged and therefore there was nothing stopping him from purchasing the firearm.
In the case of the recent killing of a San Francisco woman by an illegal alien that had been deported 5 times, and who had committed several crimes, the FBI should have arrested him months ago when they were notified that the SF police had him in custody. So, as a result of that error we have another murder that could have been avoided.
These kind of FBI failures are not uncommon. One of the shooters at the Draw Mohammed Contest in Garland Texas had been on the FBI's radar for years. Yet, where were they when, days before, this guy was talking up his plans under the clear-as-day hashtag #texasattack?
Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the older Tsarnaev brother also surfaced on FBI radar and was even interviewed by them. Some even think he was recruited as an informant. Yet, he went on to kill and maim.
Then there was the Fort Hood shooting. Nadal Hasan was also interviewed by the FBI when he came to their attention after having been in e-mail correspondence with radical jihadist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Yet, he was able to later kill without intervention.
The President says he's tired of all the mass killings in this country. Well, tired as he may be, perhaps he and his Justice Department should try and ride herd over his own FBI before he calls for all kinds of new gun laws.
References:
Dylann Roof should NOT have been allowed to purchase a gun and was able to because background check system FAILED: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156588/FBI-Church-gunman-shouldnt-able-gun.html
San Francisco sheriff says feds to blame in immigrant shooting case: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/san-francisco-killing/
Texas Jihad Attack Exposes FBI Failure: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/texas-jihad-attack-exposes-fbi-failure/
Internal Documents Reveal How the FBI Blew Fort Hood: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/nidal-hasan-anwar-awlaki-emails-fbi-fort-hood
FBI pushed elder Tsarnaev to be informer, lawyers assert: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/28/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-attorneys-seek-government-evidence-tamerlan-say-may-help-defense/PJoDIO3Tdf3zIau7VM9m8L/story.html
Mourning Charleston, Obama calls for stricter gun laws: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/18/obama-charleston-statement/28919199/
Clinton, Obama seek gun control in wake of Charleston: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-charleston-gun-reform/
In the case of the recent killing of a San Francisco woman by an illegal alien that had been deported 5 times, and who had committed several crimes, the FBI should have arrested him months ago when they were notified that the SF police had him in custody. So, as a result of that error we have another murder that could have been avoided.
These kind of FBI failures are not uncommon. One of the shooters at the Draw Mohammed Contest in Garland Texas had been on the FBI's radar for years. Yet, where were they when, days before, this guy was talking up his plans under the clear-as-day hashtag #texasattack?
Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the older Tsarnaev brother also surfaced on FBI radar and was even interviewed by them. Some even think he was recruited as an informant. Yet, he went on to kill and maim.
Then there was the Fort Hood shooting. Nadal Hasan was also interviewed by the FBI when he came to their attention after having been in e-mail correspondence with radical jihadist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Yet, he was able to later kill without intervention.
The President says he's tired of all the mass killings in this country. Well, tired as he may be, perhaps he and his Justice Department should try and ride herd over his own FBI before he calls for all kinds of new gun laws.
References:
Dylann Roof should NOT have been allowed to purchase a gun and was able to because background check system FAILED: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156588/FBI-Church-gunman-shouldnt-able-gun.html
San Francisco sheriff says feds to blame in immigrant shooting case: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/san-francisco-killing/
Texas Jihad Attack Exposes FBI Failure: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/texas-jihad-attack-exposes-fbi-failure/
Internal Documents Reveal How the FBI Blew Fort Hood: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/nidal-hasan-anwar-awlaki-emails-fbi-fort-hood
FBI pushed elder Tsarnaev to be informer, lawyers assert: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/28/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-attorneys-seek-government-evidence-tamerlan-say-may-help-defense/PJoDIO3Tdf3zIau7VM9m8L/story.html
Mourning Charleston, Obama calls for stricter gun laws: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/18/obama-charleston-statement/28919199/
Clinton, Obama seek gun control in wake of Charleston: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-charleston-gun-reform/
Monday, July 13, 2015
OK The Confederate Flag In S.C. Is Gone. Now What?
As I am writing this, South Carolina has removed the racist, Confederate flag from the State Capital grounds. A flag that ceased being the official flag of the South 139 years ago. So, now, blacks are safe from murdeingr racists whites. Right? The only problem is that statistically whites don't kill blacks. Blacks do.
According to FBI records, 2491 blacks were murdered in 2013. Only 189 offenders in those deaths were white. 2245 where black.
So, what flag do we need to take down to keep blacks from killing other blacks?
References:
FBI Murder Statistics: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
S.C. Statehouse will take down Confederate flag Friday: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/09/south-carolina-house-confederate-flag/29901255/
According to FBI records, 2491 blacks were murdered in 2013. Only 189 offenders in those deaths were white. 2245 where black.
So, what flag do we need to take down to keep blacks from killing other blacks?
References:
FBI Murder Statistics: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
S.C. Statehouse will take down Confederate flag Friday: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/09/south-carolina-house-confederate-flag/29901255/
Saturday, July 11, 2015
The Pope Calls Captialism the 'Devil's Dung'
In a recent speech during his Latin American poverty tour, Pope Francis called the unfettered pursuit of money -- supposedly capitalism -- the "dung of the devil”.
Well, obviously, while not mentioning the USA by name, he must think we are all the most prolific devil's dung owners in the world since we have the biggest single-country capitalist economy. Doesn't that just make every American want to take a shower?
My problem with the Pope's statement is that the people of the USA are the most generous givers to charity in the world. More than any other country, we like to spread our dung around to help the poor. While somewhat outdated, this chart from Mark J. Perry's Carpe Diem Blog sums that fact up very nicely:
The "giving" by other countries is so low that it would be a waste of space to include them on the chart.
Even though Americans lost 8% of their median household incomes during the recession and have yet to recover from that, USA charitable giving last year was up to 2.1% of GDP or $358.4 billion. That's like every one of us giving each man, woman, and child in the world a gift of more than $51.
What this Pope doesn't understand is, without capitalism, who would take care of the poor. Also, when it comes to the poor, he and the Catholic Church are fine if they continue to have more and more children so the family unit becomes even more destitute.
I can't wait until September when he lands in the U.S. What will he have to say about this country?
References:
Pope calls unfettered capitalism 'the dung of the devil': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11730371/Pope-calls-for-an-end-to-the-murders-of-Christians-in-the-Middle-East-and-beyond.html
Carpe Diem: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/06/americans-are-most-generous-people-in.html
Real Median Household Incomes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Is charitable giving really at a record high?: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/18/is-charitable-giving-really-at-a-record-high.html
Well, obviously, while not mentioning the USA by name, he must think we are all the most prolific devil's dung owners in the world since we have the biggest single-country capitalist economy. Doesn't that just make every American want to take a shower?
My problem with the Pope's statement is that the people of the USA are the most generous givers to charity in the world. More than any other country, we like to spread our dung around to help the poor. While somewhat outdated, this chart from Mark J. Perry's Carpe Diem Blog sums that fact up very nicely:
Even though Americans lost 8% of their median household incomes during the recession and have yet to recover from that, USA charitable giving last year was up to 2.1% of GDP or $358.4 billion. That's like every one of us giving each man, woman, and child in the world a gift of more than $51.
What this Pope doesn't understand is, without capitalism, who would take care of the poor. Also, when it comes to the poor, he and the Catholic Church are fine if they continue to have more and more children so the family unit becomes even more destitute.
I can't wait until September when he lands in the U.S. What will he have to say about this country?
References:
Pope calls unfettered capitalism 'the dung of the devil': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11730371/Pope-calls-for-an-end-to-the-murders-of-Christians-in-the-Middle-East-and-beyond.html
Carpe Diem: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/06/americans-are-most-generous-people-in.html
Real Median Household Incomes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Is charitable giving really at a record high?: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/18/is-charitable-giving-really-at-a-record-high.html
Friday, July 10, 2015
Since 1987, the FBI Has Been Hiding Hispanic Crime Stats
Trying to find FBI crime statistics on Hispanics will prove fruitless. 90% of Hispanic crime is included with white statistics, with the balance being lumped in with black crime. But, while you can't find Hispanics, you will find the minority statistics for "American Indian or Alaskan Natives" and "Asian or Pacific Islanders". They have been doing this since 1987 when they began hiding Hispanics from the annual reporting.
So, why include Hispanics in with whites? The only explanation is political; starting with the signing of Reagan's Amnesty Act in November 1986. This is because, if Hispanic crime was separated, you would see that it far exceeds most white crime making any form of amnesty questionable. For example, look at this chart on the 2014 murders in New York City from the NYPD's latest annual report:
As you can see, murder in New York City -- especially by gun -- is primarily a black and Hispanic problem; with whites only accounting for 6% of murder arrests. This, even though whites are the majority population in that city.
Now, while, New York City with its high Hispanic population (28.9% versus 13% for all the U.S.) may not be representative of all Hispanic/Latino crime in America, it still shows that whites have much lower murder rates when compared to Hispanics. A fact that is consistent with all other categories of crime in New York City, and a fact that the FBI has been hiding all these years.
Thanks to efforts from groups like the ACLU, the 2014 statistics (due later this year) will breakout Hispanic as a separate category and I think, America will be shocked at how much crime they are responsible for. A fact that may somewhat derail the push to give millions of Hispanics amnesty and, ultimately, citizenship. More crime, by bringing illegals out into the open, is not what this country needs.
References:
FBI: Crimes By Race -- Table 43: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf
New York City Crime Report: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/enforcement_report_year_end_2014.pdf
New York City Quick Facts: Racial Makeup: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000.html
FBI To Track Latino Arrests For Uniform Crime Report: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/fbi-latino-arrests_n_3492521.html
 |
| See full table in References below |
So, why include Hispanics in with whites? The only explanation is political; starting with the signing of Reagan's Amnesty Act in November 1986. This is because, if Hispanic crime was separated, you would see that it far exceeds most white crime making any form of amnesty questionable. For example, look at this chart on the 2014 murders in New York City from the NYPD's latest annual report:
Now, while, New York City with its high Hispanic population (28.9% versus 13% for all the U.S.) may not be representative of all Hispanic/Latino crime in America, it still shows that whites have much lower murder rates when compared to Hispanics. A fact that is consistent with all other categories of crime in New York City, and a fact that the FBI has been hiding all these years.
Thanks to efforts from groups like the ACLU, the 2014 statistics (due later this year) will breakout Hispanic as a separate category and I think, America will be shocked at how much crime they are responsible for. A fact that may somewhat derail the push to give millions of Hispanics amnesty and, ultimately, citizenship. More crime, by bringing illegals out into the open, is not what this country needs.
References:
FBI: Crimes By Race -- Table 43: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf
New York City Crime Report: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/enforcement_report_year_end_2014.pdf
New York City Quick Facts: Racial Makeup: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000.html
FBI To Track Latino Arrests For Uniform Crime Report: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/fbi-latino-arrests_n_3492521.html
Thursday, July 9, 2015
If Greece Exits the European Union...
For the European Union, Greece, mired in debt, is very similar to a company with a losing operating division that is dragging down corporate profits. Even a not-so-smart CEO would divest themselves of that division. With Greece voting "no" on austerity programs to get themselves out of debt, the European Union (EU) probably has no other choice but to say "ta ta" to Greece and eject them from the free-market trade advantages of the "Union" and its common currency. This, rather than keep pouring money (loans) down a black hole of a country that can't get its own finances in order.
If Greece does return to its former currency, the drachma, its heavy debt will literally make it worthless in any trade with other countries. Any imported products that Greeks are incapable of producing or making themselves,will be priced through the roof. Inflation will be rampant and there will be severe shortages that are aggravated by hoarding. Don't forget, Greece's top import is motor fuels. What if prices are triple or more than what they are today? For sure, unemployment will also soar.
If the Greeks think they have it bad now with imposed austerity, just wait until they exit the European Union.
References:
No! Greek vote shocks Europe - Jul. 5, 2015 - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/05/news/economy/greece-crisis-referendum-results/
Greek Imports: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/imports
If Greece does return to its former currency, the drachma, its heavy debt will literally make it worthless in any trade with other countries. Any imported products that Greeks are incapable of producing or making themselves,will be priced through the roof. Inflation will be rampant and there will be severe shortages that are aggravated by hoarding. Don't forget, Greece's top import is motor fuels. What if prices are triple or more than what they are today? For sure, unemployment will also soar.
If the Greeks think they have it bad now with imposed austerity, just wait until they exit the European Union.
References:
No! Greek vote shocks Europe - Jul. 5, 2015 - CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/05/news/economy/greece-crisis-referendum-results/
Greek Imports: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/imports
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Trump Is Right. Illegals Have High Rates of Crime
11 million illegal immigrants make up 3.4% of this country's population. Yet, depending on which study you look at, the incarceration rates for illegals is many times that percentage. For example, in 2004, the Department of Health and Human services found that 22% of the people in our state prisons were foreign born. The Federal Bureau of Prisons found that 26% of its inmate population were non-citizens.
In January, a Senate committee headed up by Chuck Grassley found that 1,000 of the 36,000 illegals released by the Department of Homeland Security went on to commit crimes. One of those released, as reported by the Washington Times, went on to commit the following: "convicted of inflicting injury on a domestic partner; child cruelty, with the possibility of injury or death; probation violations; speeding; driving without a license; and failing to appear for court." The fact is that Hispanics represent 40% of federal crimes in this country of which 72% of those crimes are committed by non-citizen Latinos (see Wikipedia reference below).
In addition to all of the above, it now appears that some of the children crossing our border are members of the notorious and violent gang: MS-13.
The political left doesn't want you hear these kinds of facts because it could derail President Obama's and other Democrat's push for amnesty. Ever since Donald Trump said that illegals were bringing crime, the left-leaning media has done everything possible to discredit him, but the recent murder of a women in San Francisco by an alien who had been deported 5 times has brought Trump's words into a new light.
To counter that San Francisco killing, all you hear from the political left is that you can't use this one incident as an example that illegals commit crimes. Really? They should look at the stats. Illegals, in general, commit crimes at a rate that is at least 6-1/2 times higher than their population.
References:
Center for Immigration Studies: Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime
Race and Crime in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Hispanics
Illegal immigrants released from custody committed 1,000 new crimes: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/30/illegal-immigrants-released-custody-committed-1000/
Border Crisis: Illegal Immigrant ‘Children’ Include MS-13 Gang Members: http://freebeacon.com/issues/border-crisis-illegal-immigrant-children-include-ms-13-gang-members/
Suspect in killing of San Francisco woman had been deported five times: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/us/san-francisco-killing-suspect-immigrant-deported/
Surprise! Donald Trump is wrong about immigrants and crime: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/surprise-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/
In January, a Senate committee headed up by Chuck Grassley found that 1,000 of the 36,000 illegals released by the Department of Homeland Security went on to commit crimes. One of those released, as reported by the Washington Times, went on to commit the following: "convicted of inflicting injury on a domestic partner; child cruelty, with the possibility of injury or death; probation violations; speeding; driving without a license; and failing to appear for court." The fact is that Hispanics represent 40% of federal crimes in this country of which 72% of those crimes are committed by non-citizen Latinos (see Wikipedia reference below).
In addition to all of the above, it now appears that some of the children crossing our border are members of the notorious and violent gang: MS-13.
The political left doesn't want you hear these kinds of facts because it could derail President Obama's and other Democrat's push for amnesty. Ever since Donald Trump said that illegals were bringing crime, the left-leaning media has done everything possible to discredit him, but the recent murder of a women in San Francisco by an alien who had been deported 5 times has brought Trump's words into a new light.
To counter that San Francisco killing, all you hear from the political left is that you can't use this one incident as an example that illegals commit crimes. Really? They should look at the stats. Illegals, in general, commit crimes at a rate that is at least 6-1/2 times higher than their population.
References:
Center for Immigration Studies: Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue: http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime
Race and Crime in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Hispanics
Illegal immigrants released from custody committed 1,000 new crimes: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/30/illegal-immigrants-released-custody-committed-1000/
Border Crisis: Illegal Immigrant ‘Children’ Include MS-13 Gang Members: http://freebeacon.com/issues/border-crisis-illegal-immigrant-children-include-ms-13-gang-members/
Suspect in killing of San Francisco woman had been deported five times: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/us/san-francisco-killing-suspect-immigrant-deported/
Surprise! Donald Trump is wrong about immigrants and crime: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/surprise-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
The Pope's Climate Change Encyclical: A Socialist Manifesto
Anyone reading Pope Francis' Encyclical ('Laudato Si') on climate change is left with three primary takeaways.
Now, defender's of the demands will say that he isn't demanding socialism as a means of wealth re-distribution. Instead, he is merely asking the world to care for the poor as part of Christ's teachings. Well, if that was true, why did he appoint one of the world's leading socialist and anti-capitalist authors, Naomi Klein, as the co-chairperson of his upcoming conference on climate change?
The trouble with the grand "revolution" is that it won't work. Socialism has never worked. Look at Greece today. They are about to collapse as a nation. All because of massive social programs being the norm in Greek society. That same European socialism is the reason why Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Italy are all lined up to follow Greece down the road to ruin. Four of those five are Roman Catholic countries. Which brings me to the point that socialism and Catholicism seem to go hand in hand. Followed by social strife, poverty, and high unemployment.
Pope Francis is from Argentina which has many poor. A country which Naomi Klein filmed a socialist documentary 'about called The Take'. This is why the Pope has probably picked her and why he is a socialist. In fact, Mexico and Central and South America are all poor and, as such, many have turned to socialism to fix extreme income inequality. Again, all Catholic countries with the worst being Venezuela. Since Hugo Chavez strongly converted Venezuela to a near-communist form of socialism, the entire country suffers from shortages of basic necessities such as milk, meat, and even toilet paper. You see, once you destroy the wealth building mechanism of capitalism, the whole country descends into poverty. Too many takers and too few givers to keep it all going.
Simply, when all the capitalist's wealth is gone, what then? Who, then, can the poor turn to? Just remember the words of Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
References:
Pope Francis: 'Revolution' needed to combat climate change: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-francis-climate-technology-encyclical/
Pope's climate change encyclical tells rich nations: pay your debt to the poor: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/popes-climate-change-encyclical-calls-on-rich-nations-to-pay-social-debt
Pope Francis recruits Naomi Klein in climate change battle: Social activist ‘surprised but delighted’ to join top cardinal in high-level environment conference at the Vatican: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/pope-climate-change-naomi-klein
Naomi Klein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein
The Take: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take_%282004_film%29
Greeks chose poverty, let them have their way: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2bc11fe8-0dd5-11e5-9a65-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3f21oK8CI
The troubled PIIGS countries—Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain—have been suffering from financial sustainability concerns: http://marketrealist.com/2015/07/piigs-piis/
Rich In Oil, Venezuela Is Now Poor In Most Everything Else: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/02/07/384331225/rich-in-oil-venezuela-is-now-poor-in-most-everything-else
Shortages In Venezuela: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortages_in_Venezuela
Socialism in Latin America: http://worldissues.weebly.com/socialism-in-latin-america.html
Margaret Thatcher On Socialism: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/thatcher.asp
- Consumerism, driven by capitalism, is depleting the world's resources and raising the world's green house gasses resulting in global warming and climate change.
- Rich nations and rich people must transfer their wealth to poorer countries and poorer peoples to help compensate them for what he calls the "pile of filth" they have created in our common home of this earth.
- Population controls (abortion and contraception) are not the solution to fighting climate change.
Now, defender's of the demands will say that he isn't demanding socialism as a means of wealth re-distribution. Instead, he is merely asking the world to care for the poor as part of Christ's teachings. Well, if that was true, why did he appoint one of the world's leading socialist and anti-capitalist authors, Naomi Klein, as the co-chairperson of his upcoming conference on climate change?
The trouble with the grand "revolution" is that it won't work. Socialism has never worked. Look at Greece today. They are about to collapse as a nation. All because of massive social programs being the norm in Greek society. That same European socialism is the reason why Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Italy are all lined up to follow Greece down the road to ruin. Four of those five are Roman Catholic countries. Which brings me to the point that socialism and Catholicism seem to go hand in hand. Followed by social strife, poverty, and high unemployment.
Pope Francis is from Argentina which has many poor. A country which Naomi Klein filmed a socialist documentary 'about called The Take'. This is why the Pope has probably picked her and why he is a socialist. In fact, Mexico and Central and South America are all poor and, as such, many have turned to socialism to fix extreme income inequality. Again, all Catholic countries with the worst being Venezuela. Since Hugo Chavez strongly converted Venezuela to a near-communist form of socialism, the entire country suffers from shortages of basic necessities such as milk, meat, and even toilet paper. You see, once you destroy the wealth building mechanism of capitalism, the whole country descends into poverty. Too many takers and too few givers to keep it all going.
Simply, when all the capitalist's wealth is gone, what then? Who, then, can the poor turn to? Just remember the words of Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
References:
Pope Francis: 'Revolution' needed to combat climate change: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-francis-climate-technology-encyclical/
Pope's climate change encyclical tells rich nations: pay your debt to the poor: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/popes-climate-change-encyclical-calls-on-rich-nations-to-pay-social-debt
Pope Francis recruits Naomi Klein in climate change battle: Social activist ‘surprised but delighted’ to join top cardinal in high-level environment conference at the Vatican: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/pope-climate-change-naomi-klein
Naomi Klein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein
The Take: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take_%282004_film%29
Greeks chose poverty, let them have their way: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2bc11fe8-0dd5-11e5-9a65-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3f21oK8CI
The troubled PIIGS countries—Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain—have been suffering from financial sustainability concerns: http://marketrealist.com/2015/07/piigs-piis/
Rich In Oil, Venezuela Is Now Poor In Most Everything Else: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/02/07/384331225/rich-in-oil-venezuela-is-now-poor-in-most-everything-else
Shortages In Venezuela: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortages_in_Venezuela
Socialism in Latin America: http://worldissues.weebly.com/socialism-in-latin-america.html
Margaret Thatcher On Socialism: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/thatcher.asp
Monday, July 6, 2015
Why Baby Boomers Aren't Causing Lower Labor Participation Rates
Once again, the nation's unemployment rate fell on a shrinking labor participation rate and, once again, people on the left are explaining it away on the basis that 10,000 Baby Boomers are retiring every day; starting 4 years ago in 2011. Therefore, we are led to believe that there are more people retiring than entering the workforce. Well, not according to this population pyramid derived from Census Bureau data:
Simply, there are roughly 17.5 million theoretical retirees (age 65-69) against almost 23.5 million theoretical job seekers (age 20-24). The net of which should result in an annual increase of 1.2 million workers per year. Yet, month after month, the size of the workforce barely increases or even falls. In fact, it fell by 432,000 workers last month.
References:
Labor force participation rate falls to 38-year low: http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-falls-to-38-year-low-2015-7
US Age Structure 2014: http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/age_structure.html
Simply, there are roughly 17.5 million theoretical retirees (age 65-69) against almost 23.5 million theoretical job seekers (age 20-24). The net of which should result in an annual increase of 1.2 million workers per year. Yet, month after month, the size of the workforce barely increases or even falls. In fact, it fell by 432,000 workers last month.
References:
Labor force participation rate falls to 38-year low: http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-falls-to-38-year-low-2015-7
US Age Structure 2014: http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/age_structure.html
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Obama Is Trying To Re-Write His Jobs Record
Yesterday, following the release of the June employment report, the President told this to an adoring crowd:
When Obama came to Office, the unemployment rate was 7.5%; not hovering around 10. Also, he promised that, with the stimulus, we would be at 5.3% three years ago in 2012. Oh, and by the way. His stimulus plan was supposed to keep the unemployment rate below 8%. Instead, it went to 10. In support of those projections, he submitted this chart that has been annotated with red data points to reflect the actual data:
64 months ago, in March 2010, the number of unemployed was 15 million with the size of the workforce being 153.9 million. As of June, 8.3 million were without jobs and the workforce was at 157 million. In theory, the increase in the workforce by 3.1 million and the reduction of the unemployed by 6.7 million should tell us how many jobs were created in the last 64 months. My math says 9.8 million. Three million shy of the President's 12.8 million claim.
Lastly, as to 64 months of jobs creation being a new record? It was a very long and painful time to get to this point. Not something I personally would think that President Obama should be bragging about.
References:
Obama On June Jobs Report: https://grabien.com/story.php?id=31596
Chart Source 1: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-awful-awful-august-jobs-report/
Another Chart: http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/the-obama-stimulus-three-years-of-failure
Employment Report January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archive/empsit_02062009.pdf
Employment Report March 2010: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_04022010.pdf
Employment Report June 2015: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
“Now, this morning, we learned that our businesses created another 223,000 jobs last month. (Applause) The unemployment rates now down to 5.3 percent. (Applause) Keep in mind, when I came into office, it was hovering around 10 percent. All told we’ve now seen 64 straight months of private sector job growth, which is a new record. (Applause) 12.8 million new jobs all told...” (Applause)If only it were true.
When Obama came to Office, the unemployment rate was 7.5%; not hovering around 10. Also, he promised that, with the stimulus, we would be at 5.3% three years ago in 2012. Oh, and by the way. His stimulus plan was supposed to keep the unemployment rate below 8%. Instead, it went to 10. In support of those projections, he submitted this chart that has been annotated with red data points to reflect the actual data:
Lastly, as to 64 months of jobs creation being a new record? It was a very long and painful time to get to this point. Not something I personally would think that President Obama should be bragging about.
References:
Obama On June Jobs Report: https://grabien.com/story.php?id=31596
Chart Source 1: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-awful-awful-august-jobs-report/
Another Chart: http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/the-obama-stimulus-three-years-of-failure
Employment Report January 2009: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archive/empsit_02062009.pdf
Employment Report March 2010: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_04022010.pdf
Employment Report June 2015: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Friday, July 3, 2015
Obama Eliminated Salaried Work for Millions
For most of my adult working life, I was salaried. Sure, I worked overtime without any compensation for it. But, usually that was my choice. Often, I would take paperwork home to catch up. At the same time, it was generally accepted that I could ask to come in late, leave early, take a longer lunch, run an errand, or go to a doctor during the workday without being docked. As long as my work was being done and the absences were approved and not excessive.
President Obama has changed all that. With a stroke of his pen, he has basically eliminated salaried pay for anyone making $50,440/year and put them on the clock. That's because, if you are salaried and you work more than 40 hours in any week, you will be paid time-and-a-half per hour based on whatever your equivalent hourly rate is in your 40-hour work week. By making this change, Obama claims he is giving 5 million workers a raise. But, is he really?
First of all, just because you are salaried and make less than $50,440 doesn't mean you are automatically eligible for overtime pay.
The company you work for must have revenues in excess of $500,000. If your job is task-defined as executive, administrative, managerial, or professional, you are exempt from the overtime benefit. If you supervise two or more people, or have input in hiring and firing, there's no overtime pay. Also, contract labor and field sales personnel that work on commission are excluded. Other rules apply as specified by the Fair Labor Standards Act which the President's pen can't touch. Only Congress can.
As usual, Obama seems to think that employers will roll over and accept his dictate without making changes to avoid the new overtime rule.
In some cases, startup and existing companies who are either unprofitable or only marginally profitable, and who depend on everybody pitching in after hours could go out of business and, as a result, people will lose their jobs; salaried or otherwise. A generalized rule like this makes no exception for a company in hard times.
Some salaried workers, depending on how close they are to $50,440 and depending on how much overtime they put in, will see a raise to just above $50,440 to avoid having to pay them overtime. Others may lose their jobs to outside contractors; a growing trend as a result of ObamaCare. Some may be replaced with part time workers. Even, a change in duties and responsibilities with a small pay increase could bypass it. Lastly, anyone left and eligible will be changed to an hourly worker. They won't get paid for lunch or breaks, coming in late, leaving early, or for exceeding sick days. Also, their quality of work and timeliness of completing responsibilities will be closely scrutinized. Employee relations may greatly suffer as a result of the new rule.
My guess is that, maybe, a million workers will benefit, but far more will be hurt. That is usually the case when government intervenes in the business of the private sector.
References:
New overtime rule could affect up to 5 million workers: http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/06/30/obama-overtime-rules-huffington-post/29500349/
Fair Labor Standards Act: http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
Large Companies Double Use of Contract Labor: http://www.computereconomics.com/article.cfm?id=1331
Small Business Is Using More Contractors - Entrepreneur: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/236391
President Obama has changed all that. With a stroke of his pen, he has basically eliminated salaried pay for anyone making $50,440/year and put them on the clock. That's because, if you are salaried and you work more than 40 hours in any week, you will be paid time-and-a-half per hour based on whatever your equivalent hourly rate is in your 40-hour work week. By making this change, Obama claims he is giving 5 million workers a raise. But, is he really?
First of all, just because you are salaried and make less than $50,440 doesn't mean you are automatically eligible for overtime pay.
The company you work for must have revenues in excess of $500,000. If your job is task-defined as executive, administrative, managerial, or professional, you are exempt from the overtime benefit. If you supervise two or more people, or have input in hiring and firing, there's no overtime pay. Also, contract labor and field sales personnel that work on commission are excluded. Other rules apply as specified by the Fair Labor Standards Act which the President's pen can't touch. Only Congress can.
As usual, Obama seems to think that employers will roll over and accept his dictate without making changes to avoid the new overtime rule.
In some cases, startup and existing companies who are either unprofitable or only marginally profitable, and who depend on everybody pitching in after hours could go out of business and, as a result, people will lose their jobs; salaried or otherwise. A generalized rule like this makes no exception for a company in hard times.
Some salaried workers, depending on how close they are to $50,440 and depending on how much overtime they put in, will see a raise to just above $50,440 to avoid having to pay them overtime. Others may lose their jobs to outside contractors; a growing trend as a result of ObamaCare. Some may be replaced with part time workers. Even, a change in duties and responsibilities with a small pay increase could bypass it. Lastly, anyone left and eligible will be changed to an hourly worker. They won't get paid for lunch or breaks, coming in late, leaving early, or for exceeding sick days. Also, their quality of work and timeliness of completing responsibilities will be closely scrutinized. Employee relations may greatly suffer as a result of the new rule.
My guess is that, maybe, a million workers will benefit, but far more will be hurt. That is usually the case when government intervenes in the business of the private sector.
References:
New overtime rule could affect up to 5 million workers: http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/06/30/obama-overtime-rules-huffington-post/29500349/
Fair Labor Standards Act: http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
Large Companies Double Use of Contract Labor: http://www.computereconomics.com/article.cfm?id=1331
Small Business Is Using More Contractors - Entrepreneur: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/236391
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Cuba: Obama's Fantasy Land
For more than 50 years, we have embargoed trade and travel with Cuba, and President Obama has stated, "it hasn't worked". What was supposed to have "worked"? Does he really think that a resumption of diplomatic relations with the U.S. will somehow cause Cuba to dump communism and adopt a democratically elected form of a free-trade government?
Cuba has allowed trading (on a very limited basis) and inbound-only travel with the rest of the world, for as long as our embargo has existed. In fact, it has approximately 3 million visitors per year with democracy-loving Canadians representing a third of them. Those visitors are a main revenue maker. Thus, tourism is essential to the strengthening of the Cuban government, its police and security forces, and its military, in order to keep order; especially to keep any dissidents in line with hundreds of arrests and imprisonments each year.
None of that money goes to the people directly because they all work for the government; are paid by the government; and, are housed, fed, and clothed by the government through a system of rationing. All the hotels are government owned and operated. That is why, today, this communist island looks much like it did in the 1960's. So, the injection of American tourist money will just add to their financial strength and not somehow create a showcase of democracy 90 miles off our shores, as President Obama seems to think.
As far as trade with Cuba is concerned, Castro's government, not the people, decide what is allowed into the island and how much. Most Cubans couldn't afford the products that we seem to think they might want. The average Cuban, depending on age and working status, gets between $12 a month for retired persons and $20 for those who work; with an extra $5 for construction workers. That's their allowance. Some might be able to keep tips as hotel and restaurant workers; but most can't. They must pool those tips to be shared among the other workers. They can't have credit cards or take on any debt. Nor can they take money that tourists may give them. Tourist's bills paid with credit cards with tips added, will probably all wind up held by the government.
So, OK, the President has re-opened our embassies. Other country's embassies have existed for decades, and that has never changed them. If Obama thinks that we can use our embassies to undermine the Cuban form of government, he is living a pipe dream. A fantasy. As soon as we are caught trying to do that, they will just shut them down and expel our diplomats. Maybe even arrest our diplomats. Also, any tourists from this country doing the same will be arrested as subversives. Just mark my words.
References:
Obama on US Embassy in Cuba: 'This Is What Change Looks Like': http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/u-s-cuba-relations/coming-obama-announces-deal-open-cuban-embassy-n385001
Cuban Dissidents Arrested Google Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=cuban+dissidents+arrested&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Tourism in Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Cuba
2014: Average salary in Cuba rose 1 pct last year to $20 a month: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/06/17/average-salary-in-cuba-rose-1-pct-last-year-to-20-month/
Rationing in Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_Cuba
Cuba has allowed trading (on a very limited basis) and inbound-only travel with the rest of the world, for as long as our embargo has existed. In fact, it has approximately 3 million visitors per year with democracy-loving Canadians representing a third of them. Those visitors are a main revenue maker. Thus, tourism is essential to the strengthening of the Cuban government, its police and security forces, and its military, in order to keep order; especially to keep any dissidents in line with hundreds of arrests and imprisonments each year.
None of that money goes to the people directly because they all work for the government; are paid by the government; and, are housed, fed, and clothed by the government through a system of rationing. All the hotels are government owned and operated. That is why, today, this communist island looks much like it did in the 1960's. So, the injection of American tourist money will just add to their financial strength and not somehow create a showcase of democracy 90 miles off our shores, as President Obama seems to think.
As far as trade with Cuba is concerned, Castro's government, not the people, decide what is allowed into the island and how much. Most Cubans couldn't afford the products that we seem to think they might want. The average Cuban, depending on age and working status, gets between $12 a month for retired persons and $20 for those who work; with an extra $5 for construction workers. That's their allowance. Some might be able to keep tips as hotel and restaurant workers; but most can't. They must pool those tips to be shared among the other workers. They can't have credit cards or take on any debt. Nor can they take money that tourists may give them. Tourist's bills paid with credit cards with tips added, will probably all wind up held by the government.
So, OK, the President has re-opened our embassies. Other country's embassies have existed for decades, and that has never changed them. If Obama thinks that we can use our embassies to undermine the Cuban form of government, he is living a pipe dream. A fantasy. As soon as we are caught trying to do that, they will just shut them down and expel our diplomats. Maybe even arrest our diplomats. Also, any tourists from this country doing the same will be arrested as subversives. Just mark my words.
References:
Obama on US Embassy in Cuba: 'This Is What Change Looks Like': http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/u-s-cuba-relations/coming-obama-announces-deal-open-cuban-embassy-n385001
Cuban Dissidents Arrested Google Search: https://www.google.com/search?q=cuban+dissidents+arrested&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Tourism in Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Cuba
2014: Average salary in Cuba rose 1 pct last year to $20 a month: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/06/17/average-salary-in-cuba-rose-1-pct-last-year-to-20-month/
Rationing in Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_Cuba
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Enough With the Calls to Eradicate Slave-Owning Founding Father's Images
The removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina capital grounds has now morphed into demands to eliminate any images and statuary of Confederate heroes and, it hasn't stopped there. There are now new calls to erase from our history those founding fathers who owned slaves. People like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Ben Franklin, James Madison and so many more.
The fact is, that all these men were born into a society where slavery (and resulting racism) had already been institutionalized by the British in 1619 when 20 African slaves were introduced into our first permanent colony of Jamestown. By the time these founders declared our independence from Britain, in 1776, slavery and its acceptance had been firmly imbedded in society for 157 years. Over all those years, Britain and other countries happily supplied this country with slaves.
Simply, slavery was prevalent around the known populated world and had been accepted since the time of the Pyramids. In fact, in Africa, slavery was very prevalent. In the 19th Century, nearly half of all the citizens in the African country of Sierra Leone were indentured as slaves. Also understand, that many of the slaves in the new world were sold by the Nigerians. So, if you want to blame anyone for the attitudes by some whites towards blacks being inferior, then blame the British and the Nigerians for feeding into that idea with the slave trade. Other people of color such as east Indians, Asians, and also Hispanics are less racially disrespected because they weren't brought to this country as slaves.
Simply, our founding fathers grew up in a society where black slavery was accepted. Even those who didn't own slaves probably thought of it as a common fact of life. Let's stop trying to rewrite history about something that was widespread throughout the world at the time this country was founded. Also, keep in mind that slavery still exists in some parts of Africa while most white populated countries have long since banned the practice.
References:
Texas Liberals Sign Petition to Remove ‘Racist’ George Washington Statue: http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/06/25/texas-liberals-sign-petition-to-remove-racist-george-washington-statue/
The Founding Fathers and Slavery: http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536
History of Slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Portugal
African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade
Slavery in Africa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa
Human trafficking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking
Human trafficking in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_United_States
The fact is, that all these men were born into a society where slavery (and resulting racism) had already been institutionalized by the British in 1619 when 20 African slaves were introduced into our first permanent colony of Jamestown. By the time these founders declared our independence from Britain, in 1776, slavery and its acceptance had been firmly imbedded in society for 157 years. Over all those years, Britain and other countries happily supplied this country with slaves.
Simply, slavery was prevalent around the known populated world and had been accepted since the time of the Pyramids. In fact, in Africa, slavery was very prevalent. In the 19th Century, nearly half of all the citizens in the African country of Sierra Leone were indentured as slaves. Also understand, that many of the slaves in the new world were sold by the Nigerians. So, if you want to blame anyone for the attitudes by some whites towards blacks being inferior, then blame the British and the Nigerians for feeding into that idea with the slave trade. Other people of color such as east Indians, Asians, and also Hispanics are less racially disrespected because they weren't brought to this country as slaves.
Simply, our founding fathers grew up in a society where black slavery was accepted. Even those who didn't own slaves probably thought of it as a common fact of life. Let's stop trying to rewrite history about something that was widespread throughout the world at the time this country was founded. Also, keep in mind that slavery still exists in some parts of Africa while most white populated countries have long since banned the practice.
References:
Texas Liberals Sign Petition to Remove ‘Racist’ George Washington Statue: http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/06/25/texas-liberals-sign-petition-to-remove-racist-george-washington-statue/
The Founding Fathers and Slavery: http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536
History of Slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Portugal
African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade
Slavery in Africa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa
Human trafficking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking
Human trafficking in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_United_States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
