By all accounts, Staten Island was ground zero when hurricane Sandy hit the Northeast. It was where the eye came ashore; and, it was extremely hard hit. People were without food, water, electricity, telephone and cell phone service, and gasoline. Agencies like FEMA and the Red Cross were urging victims to call or use the Internet if they were in extreme need. Of course, this is totally ridiculous if you don't have access to any kind of phone service or electricity.
For four days following the storm, Mayor Bloomberg failed this borough by not providing "any" relief. Instead of sending much needed supplies and work crews into this community, the idiot Mayor sent people to clean up all along the route for the running of the now-cancelled Marathon.
It was only after an NBC news team filmed an impassioned plea for help that, finally, things got going on the fourth day after the storm:
There have been rumors that Bloomberg has presidential aspirations. This failure in Staten Island and his silliness regarding soft drink sizes, breast feeding, salt and, now, putting a marathon before the rescue of his people, just proves that he will never be ready to hold the "Big Job" in Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
America. Vote!
There is only one thing that separates a democracy from every other form of government and that is the right to vote in free and fair elections. But more importantly, your vote guarantees that all Americans -- as Abraham Lincoln so deftly noted in his Gettysburg Address -- have a government that is "of the people"; "by the people"; and, clearly, "for the people". For this reason, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about how you're being governed. That's because you handed your own destiny off to someone else. At least by voting, you know you've "tried" to make a better country; even if the results aren't exactly what you wanted.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Obama's Lie: Returning The Rich To The Tax Rates Under Clinton
Over and over, again, Obama calls for the "rich" to pay their fair share and simply pay the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton. But, that claim is so false, in so many ways, that it is just laughable.
First, there's this outright lie. When Clinton left office in 2001, the top tax rate was 39.6%. That's the same rate that Obama wants to return to. However, that rate was only being applied to those taxpayers making $297,350 and above; adjusted upwards from $288,350 in the previous year (see tax table link below). You see, under Clinton the threshold for paying that top rate was being adjusted, annually, to account for inflation. That's why, in 2002, the number was upped again to $307,050; and, that is also why, by 2011, the income threshold had been adjusted to $379,150. But, what Obama wants to do is to take that threshold back to $250,000 for marrieds and even lower for singles making $200,000 or more.
The other distortion -- if not an outright lie -- has to do with tax increases associated with ObamaCare. Under that law, those making in excess of $200,000 will be hit with a 0.9% with a payroll tax increase. Automatically, this means that the former-Clinton tax rate of 39.6% will be increased to a 40.5% tax rate if Obama gets his way. Further, ObamaCare adds a new tax to be born only by people making over $200,000. That tax is the 3.8% surcharge on any capital investment profits; including any profit from the sale of a home. Additionally, many of those in the $200,000/$250,000 tax bracket are the ones who have purchased "Cadillac" heath insurance policies. ObamaCare imposes a 40% against any policy under the "Cadillac" criteria.
Lastly, the rich are getting beaten around the head by new and higher taxes at the state level. In Illinois, taxes were raised by 57%. A new tax on the rich is on Tuesday's ballot in California. Put all together, the rich are being massively targeted by taxes. But, more importantly, these taxes are draining funds from the very people who create more tax paying jobs in America. Increasing taxes on the rich to solely maintain and grow economy-sucking governments is just idiocy. Just look at Greece and Spain at near financial collapse and their near 25% unemployment rates.
--- National Taxpayers Union: Historical Tax Rate Tables For Top And Bottom Rates: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
First, there's this outright lie. When Clinton left office in 2001, the top tax rate was 39.6%. That's the same rate that Obama wants to return to. However, that rate was only being applied to those taxpayers making $297,350 and above; adjusted upwards from $288,350 in the previous year (see tax table link below). You see, under Clinton the threshold for paying that top rate was being adjusted, annually, to account for inflation. That's why, in 2002, the number was upped again to $307,050; and, that is also why, by 2011, the income threshold had been adjusted to $379,150. But, what Obama wants to do is to take that threshold back to $250,000 for marrieds and even lower for singles making $200,000 or more.
The other distortion -- if not an outright lie -- has to do with tax increases associated with ObamaCare. Under that law, those making in excess of $200,000 will be hit with a 0.9% with a payroll tax increase. Automatically, this means that the former-Clinton tax rate of 39.6% will be increased to a 40.5% tax rate if Obama gets his way. Further, ObamaCare adds a new tax to be born only by people making over $200,000. That tax is the 3.8% surcharge on any capital investment profits; including any profit from the sale of a home. Additionally, many of those in the $200,000/$250,000 tax bracket are the ones who have purchased "Cadillac" heath insurance policies. ObamaCare imposes a 40% against any policy under the "Cadillac" criteria.
Lastly, the rich are getting beaten around the head by new and higher taxes at the state level. In Illinois, taxes were raised by 57%. A new tax on the rich is on Tuesday's ballot in California. Put all together, the rich are being massively targeted by taxes. But, more importantly, these taxes are draining funds from the very people who create more tax paying jobs in America. Increasing taxes on the rich to solely maintain and grow economy-sucking governments is just idiocy. Just look at Greece and Spain at near financial collapse and their near 25% unemployment rates.
--- National Taxpayers Union: Historical Tax Rate Tables For Top And Bottom Rates: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Why Romney Should Win Handily
Over the last couple of months, the presidential election polling results have come under attack from both the right and left. The left is claiming that blacks and woman are being under represented. The right claims that the polls are being skewed by the oversampling of Democrats and the undersampling of Republicans. Many of the polls that have Obama ahead are projecting the kind of intensely partisan turnout that we saw in 2008; which is simply hard to believe.
I say, forget the top line, Obama-versus-Romney numbers, and focus in on some numbers that tell the real story. I honestly think that some number of people, who are responding to the polls, are actually lying about their support of Obama. As a result, Romney should win handily. Here's why:
Lastly, if those being surveyed have been lying to pollsters, then, expect the exit polling to be way off also.
I say, forget the top line, Obama-versus-Romney numbers, and focus in on some numbers that tell the real story. I honestly think that some number of people, who are responding to the polls, are actually lying about their support of Obama. As a result, Romney should win handily. Here's why:
- The Direction of the Country. In almost every poll, on a 5.4-to-4 basis, people are saying that the country is heading in the wrong direction. Yet, in those same polls, a majority would vote for Obama anyway. This makes no sense. People have to be lying. I find it almost impossible to believe that those thinking the country is on the wrong track would actually vote for Obama so as to continue in that wrong direction.
- The Decline in Obama Job Approval and its Relationship To Votes. When Obama was swept into office, he did so with a higher than 60% job approval and with 53% of the vote. In essence, this means that 88% of the people who approved of Obama actually voted for him. Now, if that relationship were to hold true in this coming election, it would mean that Obama will only get 44% of the vote. This based on his current 50% job approval in the Real Clear summary of polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html). Keep in mind that John McCain lost to Obama with 46% of the vote.
- A Majority of Independents Side With Romney. In 2008, 52% of all independents voted for Obama; this according to CNN's exit polling ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1 ) Today, Romney is winning the independents by as little as 7 and as much as 12 percentage points; depending on the poll. This means that if the turnout is anything like 2010, where almost as many Republicans voted as did Democrats, Romney could have a landslide win; nicely handed to him by the independents.
- The Gender Gap Is Gone. In 2008, Obama won easily with women; winning by 12 percentage points (see above noted CNN exit poll data). Now, Romney and Obama stand near even (see CBS story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57539891/poll-gender-gaps-all-but-gone-in-white-house-race/). With that 12 point advantage gone and assuming that women will again vote in higher numbers than men, this can only be an advantage for Romney.
- Youth Vote Could Be Down Severely For Obama. In 2008, Obama garnered 66% of the youth vote (Pew exit polling: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election). He did so because they believed Obama could make a difference. Given the fact that half of all college grads can't find work and the fact that youth unemployment is still extremely high at 12%, it is difficult to believe that Obama will repeat 2008. Again, advantage Romney.
- The Incumbent Rule Will Give Romney The Win In Tight States. Proven to be historically true, the Incumbent Rule should give Romney 80% of the late deciders on election. See my blog post of October 25th: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-incumbent-rule-should-give-romney.html
Lastly, if those being surveyed have been lying to pollsters, then, expect the exit polling to be way off also.
The Employment Report Just Doesn't Add Up
Last month, the September Employment Situation Report said the unemployment rate dropped by 3-tenths of a percent to 7.8% while only adding 114,000 jobs to the economy. This is surprising unto itself because you would need to add roughly 450,000 jobs add to our workforce of around 150 million workers in order to lower the unemployment rate by that much. Then, last Friday, the October report said that the economy added even more jobs. This time 171,000. Yet, the unemployment rate didn't fall. Instead, it rose to 7.9%. So, obviously, something is happening beyond just simply adding jobs for it to illogically fluctuate over the last two months.
Then, when you take a look at the number of unemployed, things get even murkier. In August, the number of the "official" unemployed was 12.544 million workers. In September, when the unemployment rate fell 3-tenths, the number of unemployed dropped to 12.088 million. On a net basis, this implies that 456,000 previously unemployed workers found jobs from August to September. However, the report said that only 114,000 found jobs. Similarly, in the October report, the number of total unemployed increased by 170,000; which, this time, is almost exactly equal to the 171,000 jobs added last month.
Then there's this other inconsistency. According to the September report, 873,000 suddenly found work after not having looked for work in the prior month. Yet, somehow, that number was not included in the job gains for the month. More importantly, that 873,000 increase should have lowered the unemployment rate down to 7.2%. But, it didn't. Because, to do so, would have really raised a red flag. Instead, that number, along with the total mix of numbers, was used to so dramatically and conveniently lower the unemployment rate to below 8%.
Then, in October, another 578,000 suddenly found work. Again, that number was not included in the number of jobs being added. What that 578,000 did is kept the unemployment rate from not going above that psychological impacting level of 8%; holding it at a convenient 7.9%.
The fact is that, conveniently, a total of 1.5 million people showed up in the last two employment reports as workers who suddenly found jobs; politically helping Obama in the last two months before the election. If what I am implying is right, we should see a significant rise in the unemployment rate next month or the month after. If so, it will prove that the numbers were manipulated for political reasons. But, mark my words, nobody in the liberal media will say a word about it. Instead, if Romney wins, that very same media will still be out trying to prove that, somehow, he stole the election through deceit and lies.
References:
--- Market Watch: September Employment Report: 873,000 people in the household survey said they found jobs while the official job creation only stands at 117,000: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-10-05/economy/34268040_1_jobless-rate-number-of-new-jobs-unemployment-rate
--- Bureau of Labor Statistics: October Employment Situation Report: Workforce Increases by 578,000 while the economy only added only 171,000 Jobs: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
--- Bureau of Labor Statistics: August, September, October Employment Situation table: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
Then, when you take a look at the number of unemployed, things get even murkier. In August, the number of the "official" unemployed was 12.544 million workers. In September, when the unemployment rate fell 3-tenths, the number of unemployed dropped to 12.088 million. On a net basis, this implies that 456,000 previously unemployed workers found jobs from August to September. However, the report said that only 114,000 found jobs. Similarly, in the October report, the number of total unemployed increased by 170,000; which, this time, is almost exactly equal to the 171,000 jobs added last month.
Then there's this other inconsistency. According to the September report, 873,000 suddenly found work after not having looked for work in the prior month. Yet, somehow, that number was not included in the job gains for the month. More importantly, that 873,000 increase should have lowered the unemployment rate down to 7.2%. But, it didn't. Because, to do so, would have really raised a red flag. Instead, that number, along with the total mix of numbers, was used to so dramatically and conveniently lower the unemployment rate to below 8%.
Then, in October, another 578,000 suddenly found work. Again, that number was not included in the number of jobs being added. What that 578,000 did is kept the unemployment rate from not going above that psychological impacting level of 8%; holding it at a convenient 7.9%.
The fact is that, conveniently, a total of 1.5 million people showed up in the last two employment reports as workers who suddenly found jobs; politically helping Obama in the last two months before the election. If what I am implying is right, we should see a significant rise in the unemployment rate next month or the month after. If so, it will prove that the numbers were manipulated for political reasons. But, mark my words, nobody in the liberal media will say a word about it. Instead, if Romney wins, that very same media will still be out trying to prove that, somehow, he stole the election through deceit and lies.
References:
--- Market Watch: September Employment Report: 873,000 people in the household survey said they found jobs while the official job creation only stands at 117,000: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-10-05/economy/34268040_1_jobless-rate-number-of-new-jobs-unemployment-rate
--- Bureau of Labor Statistics: October Employment Situation Report: Workforce Increases by 578,000 while the economy only added only 171,000 Jobs: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
--- Bureau of Labor Statistics: August, September, October Employment Situation table: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
Friday, November 2, 2012
How Will Hurricane Sandy Impact The Economy?
Over the last week, I've heard a number of media types declare that there's a silver lining to hurricane Sandy; and, that is jobs. Jobs to repair and jobs to rebuild. But, this declaration simply ignores how many jobs will have been killed by this storm.
If you look at the Jersey shorelines, the boardwalks have been obliterated. These "walks" were accesses to dozens of businesses with hundreds of workers. Now, those buildings will be idled for months; maybe even years for some. Other businesses, more inland, suffered severe flooding and may not be able to reopen until the water damage is corrected and inventories replaced. All told, more jobs will probably be lost to the hurricane than will be created. Then, too, any jobs that are created won't be lasting. Once the construction work is over; the workers will go back to being unemployed.
The fact is that Sandy is "currently" estimated to have done about $20 billion in damage; and, certainly, some portion of that amount of money will be used to create jobs. But, on the other hand, it is estimated that the economy will lose as much as $30 billion in business activity. That, simplistically, could mean that for every 2 jobs created, 3 may be lost.
In terms of the overall impact, the above cost totaling $50 billion isn't much when you consider that we have a $15 trillion economy. In fact, the total impact of this disaster is less than 3-tenths of one percent. But, in an economy that is already weakening, the additive effect of this storm might be more much more significant than what the numbers are telling us.
If you look at the Jersey shorelines, the boardwalks have been obliterated. These "walks" were accesses to dozens of businesses with hundreds of workers. Now, those buildings will be idled for months; maybe even years for some. Other businesses, more inland, suffered severe flooding and may not be able to reopen until the water damage is corrected and inventories replaced. All told, more jobs will probably be lost to the hurricane than will be created. Then, too, any jobs that are created won't be lasting. Once the construction work is over; the workers will go back to being unemployed.
The fact is that Sandy is "currently" estimated to have done about $20 billion in damage; and, certainly, some portion of that amount of money will be used to create jobs. But, on the other hand, it is estimated that the economy will lose as much as $30 billion in business activity. That, simplistically, could mean that for every 2 jobs created, 3 may be lost.
In terms of the overall impact, the above cost totaling $50 billion isn't much when you consider that we have a $15 trillion economy. In fact, the total impact of this disaster is less than 3-tenths of one percent. But, in an economy that is already weakening, the additive effect of this storm might be more much more significant than what the numbers are telling us.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Another Obama Hyper-Fantasy: A Doubling Of Exports By 2015
Now, just days before the election, President Obama has produced a 20-page, glossy booklet of "the" things he will do to improve the economy in his next term. He did this to squelch the complaints that, nowhere, can anyone find Obama's plan for a second term. But, as many have noted, all this booklet does is rehash much of what he promised to do in his first term. One such "jobs" promise that appears in that booklet is a repeat of his 2010 State Of The Union commitment to double U.S. exports "by" 2015.
While this sounds like a real "jobs" winner, the reality of this actually happening is nearly impossible. Just as had been the case with almost all of Obama's promises.
First of all, in order to double exports in just five years -- from a total number of exports in 2009 to the total at the end of 2014 -- you need to "compound" export growth by more than 18% per year. So, this fact begs the question: Are our exports even close to meeting that growth demand? Of course, the answer to that question is "NO".
From 2009 to 2010, exports only grew by 16.4%; from $6.3 trillion dollars worth of trade to $7.4 trillion. Of course, this is a clear miss of that 18+% needed to double exports in just 5 years. In 2011, exports only grew by 13.5% to $18.3 trillion. Again, well off the required mark. Then, there's this year. In the first half, exports only amounted to $4.3 trillion. This means that we are, at best, set to do about $8.7 trillion; or, a meager increase of slightly more that 4%. Next year is looking to be even worse because our trade with Europe is deteriorating rapidly as most of those counties are either in or entering a state of recession and high rates of unemployment. China, too, is projecting a slowdown of their economy. This is why many of our main exporting companies, like Caterpillar, are projecting serious slowdowns in revenues and earnings in the last quarter of this year and going into 2013.
So, in each of the last 3+ years that Obama has been in office, export growth has been declining. Just like our economy. Yet, this President continues to tell the whopper that he will double exports under his watch.
References:
--- Bloomberg-Business Week: Keeping a Close Eye on Obama's Export-Doubling Pledge: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-24/keeping-a-close-eye-on-obamas-export-doubling-pledge
--- United States Exports: A 10-year Chart and Quarterly Statistics: http://www.forecast-chart.com/chart-us-exports.html
--- NBC News: Stocks finish flat after earnings disappoint (Caterpillar says: "said the global economy is slowing faster than it had expected"): http://marketday.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14615604-stocks-finish-flat-after-earnings-disappoint?lite
While this sounds like a real "jobs" winner, the reality of this actually happening is nearly impossible. Just as had been the case with almost all of Obama's promises.
First of all, in order to double exports in just five years -- from a total number of exports in 2009 to the total at the end of 2014 -- you need to "compound" export growth by more than 18% per year. So, this fact begs the question: Are our exports even close to meeting that growth demand? Of course, the answer to that question is "NO".
From 2009 to 2010, exports only grew by 16.4%; from $6.3 trillion dollars worth of trade to $7.4 trillion. Of course, this is a clear miss of that 18+% needed to double exports in just 5 years. In 2011, exports only grew by 13.5% to $18.3 trillion. Again, well off the required mark. Then, there's this year. In the first half, exports only amounted to $4.3 trillion. This means that we are, at best, set to do about $8.7 trillion; or, a meager increase of slightly more that 4%. Next year is looking to be even worse because our trade with Europe is deteriorating rapidly as most of those counties are either in or entering a state of recession and high rates of unemployment. China, too, is projecting a slowdown of their economy. This is why many of our main exporting companies, like Caterpillar, are projecting serious slowdowns in revenues and earnings in the last quarter of this year and going into 2013.
So, in each of the last 3+ years that Obama has been in office, export growth has been declining. Just like our economy. Yet, this President continues to tell the whopper that he will double exports under his watch.
References:
--- Bloomberg-Business Week: Keeping a Close Eye on Obama's Export-Doubling Pledge: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-24/keeping-a-close-eye-on-obamas-export-doubling-pledge
--- United States Exports: A 10-year Chart and Quarterly Statistics: http://www.forecast-chart.com/chart-us-exports.html
--- NBC News: Stocks finish flat after earnings disappoint (Caterpillar says: "said the global economy is slowing faster than it had expected"): http://marketday.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/22/14615604-stocks-finish-flat-after-earnings-disappoint?lite
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
