Hilda Lucia Solis may be the most important person in the country when it comes to the 2012 Presidential Election. Why? Because Hilda can make Obama's Unemployment Number anything that Obama wants it to be. Right now he is tuning 8.5% Unemployment Rate.
Who is Hilda and how does she do it? I was hoping you would ask. She is the 25th United States Secretary of Labor, serving in the Obama administration. Solis was raised in La Puente, California by immigrant parents from Nicaragua and Mexico. Her Dad was a Teamsters shop steward and organizer. Her Mom belonged to the United Rubber Workers.
Solis gained degrees from the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona) and the University of Southern California (USC) and worked for two federal agencies in Washington, D.C. Returning to her native state, she was elected to the Rio Hondo Community College Board of Trustees in 1985, the California State Assembly in 1992, and the California State Senate in 1994. She was the first Hispanic woman to serve in the State Senate, and was re-elected there in 1998. SOLIS, LIKE MOST OBAMA APPOINTEES, HAS ZERO BUSINESS EXPERIENCE. Interesting that the Secretary of Labor has never even run a snow cone stand and has no business experience. The Secretary of Labor has never even had a real job. She is a Socialist Bureaucrat.
So now we know Hilda's background and qualifications? Now, why is she so important to the 2012 Election? Have you heard that 2012 is all about JOBS? One unit that reports to Hilda is called the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics. The BLS is a governmental statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor. Among the BLS many functions is to MEASURE AND REPORT THE U.S. UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS.
To measure the unemployment rate the BLS SURVEYS AND ESTIMATES THE SIZE OF THE WORK FORCE, EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED WORKERS, AND THEN CALCULATES THE UNEMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGE. The BLS has been cooking the books!!!!
How? The BLS estimates the percentage of our population that are in the workforce either seeking or holding jobs. This is called the "labor force participation rate". The BLS has since Obama's election lowered the participation rate to make the employed numbers larger and the unemployment rate smaller. The claim is that people are "dropping out" of the labor force. Why would people stop working during tough economic times? It makes no since?
Now the numbers: When Bush left office 66.4% of the population was counted in the labor force (the participation rate). Unemployment was calculated at 7.8%. Today BLS uses 64% of the population claiming that for some number of reasons 2.5% of our population has dropped out of the workforce. By bringing down the size of the workforce they also bring down the unemployment rate to the current number of 8.5% Again, does it make since that with tough economic times that fewer Americans need and seek work? Don't think so.
If Obama's BLS used the same participation numbers as Bush did before leaving office (66.5%) the current unemployment rate would be 12%. By making arbitrary adjustments as needed to the participation rate Obama can show any number he chooses as an unemployment rate. In fact he can take the number to 0% (zero unemployment) by continuing his downward adjustment to 58.5%. Even Obama probably will not go that low, of course, unless he thinks he needs 0% (everyone that wants a job has one) to be re-elected.
So bottom line, the American electorate to be informed either needs to determine which "Obama facts" are fictional, or they have to dig a little to get the truth. In the employment area we need to know what is being used as the size of the work force, what the true employed number is, and then we can calculate or evaluate the unemployment rate.
Isn't it interesting it that most government reported metrics are tricky. For example when they talk about cuts in the federal budget, they are usually talking about reducing the growth percentage, not real cuts. When they talk about "paying" for something. The increased taxes come in the current year, and the offsetting cuts are usually over a 10 year period. In this case Hilda's people look at the employed number, calculate the unemployed number, and then adjust the "participation rate" as needed. After all, who out there has ever even heard of a "participation rate". Let's don't get in the weeds, right?
Someone needs to think about the weeds because that is where the snakes like Obama and Hilda live.
Jim
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Either Bye, Bye Obama or Bye, Bye To World Millitary Leadership
WOW! How did they know that when Obama appointed Leon Panetta to head up all US Defense forces that he was chosen because he was a "dismantler", a "cost cutter", and "green eye shade" finance guy? How did they know the best way to defeat the strongest military organization ever known to man was to just strangle it financially? Was it because Panetta had already put the CIA to sleep? While the CIA slumbers maybe we should just get our Warrior Hero, General Patreaus, out of the way by moving him to the CIA. That will shut him up.
So who is making the major decisions regarding our military sizing and deployment during Obama's last 12 months in office? Obama himself, of course. This military genius can rely on his Community Organizing experience in the most corrupt political city in the world, Chicago. He also taught a class or two (allegedly) at a University. And, of course, he had a stellar career in the Illinois legislature where he mostly just voted present. If he is a little thin on military experience, know how, and leadership we still shouldn't worry. He, like other Presidents before him (Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for example), can rely on his Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, right? That is why it is critical to put in guys like Rumsfeld and Gates.
Leon, An Italian-American Democrat politician, lawyer, and professor, Panetta served as President Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997 (sounds political), Director of the Office of Management and Budget (a bean counter) from 1993-1994, and was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993 (probably voted present). He, like Obama, taught college as a professor of public policy at Santa Clara and was the founder of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy (what the hell is this?). And of course, prior to taking office old Leon did Obama's dirty work to weaken the CIA as its Director. Great experience for destroying the military.
During his time in Congress Panetta got great military experience as his work concentrated mostly on budget issues, civil rights, health care, and environmental issues, and particularly preventing oil drilling off the West Coast. Oops, well maybe Leon is a little light on military experience.
During the Kennedy years America spent 1/2 of the federal budget on defense. Today that number is 1/5 of our federal spending. So how would the legislature let Obama and Panetta destroy our military? Simple! Remember when we were going to have to shut down our wonderful government if we didn't extend its ability to increase the debt ceiling by borrowing? Americans were crying for the Republican minority to COMPROMISE. "Please don't shut down our wonderful government because you are playing political games," they cried. Well the Republicans did compromise by agreeing to huge military spending cuts unless the SUPER COMMITTEE came up with a better plan to cut spending. With such drastic cuts, assuming even the Democrats were still loyal to the defense of the USA, the Republicans thought the SUPER COMMITTEE would act reasonably and take action. Wrong! The SUPER COMMITTEE followed their leader Obama and voted "present". They punted. They "kicked the can down the road". And so here we are with our loyal President having to make the cuts to our military that the Congress voted. These mandatory cuts come after Obama got Gates to make previous cuts to downsize. So once again the Republicans took the bait, compromised, and became an accomplice in destroying the greatest nation in history.
But of course, Obama is not acting in a military vacuum. While he dismantles our forces he is making peace with the Afghanistan Taliban, with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, with the Iranian Ayatollahs, is returning Iraq to the Militant Shiites, and Libya Muslim to the same type of radical Muslims. It seems Bin Laden was a friend to the US compared to the skinny guy in the White House. With these guys all friends of Obama now we don't need a military. Right?
The Republicans are fighting back (except the 21% in Iowa who voted for a complete foreign policy idiot named Ron Paul). They are having their press secretaries make statements:
"The president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense," said Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif.
"This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs," McKeon added. "In order to justify massive cuts to our military, he has revoked the guarantee that America will support our allies, defend our interests and defy our opponents. The president must understand that the world has always had, and will always have a leader. As America steps back, someone else will step forward."
"The president comparing our defense spending to the defense spending of other countries is certainly in line with his thinking that America is just like every other country. In terms of our freedoms and our attractiveness as a target, I'm absolutely confident that our enemies do not view us as just another country," said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Timid, timid, timid. It is time to call for the IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA, NOW!!!!!
Think about it,
Jim
So who is making the major decisions regarding our military sizing and deployment during Obama's last 12 months in office? Obama himself, of course. This military genius can rely on his Community Organizing experience in the most corrupt political city in the world, Chicago. He also taught a class or two (allegedly) at a University. And, of course, he had a stellar career in the Illinois legislature where he mostly just voted present. If he is a little thin on military experience, know how, and leadership we still shouldn't worry. He, like other Presidents before him (Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for example), can rely on his Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, right? That is why it is critical to put in guys like Rumsfeld and Gates.
Leon, An Italian-American Democrat politician, lawyer, and professor, Panetta served as President Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997 (sounds political), Director of the Office of Management and Budget (a bean counter) from 1993-1994, and was a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993 (probably voted present). He, like Obama, taught college as a professor of public policy at Santa Clara and was the founder of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy (what the hell is this?). And of course, prior to taking office old Leon did Obama's dirty work to weaken the CIA as its Director. Great experience for destroying the military.
During his time in Congress Panetta got great military experience as his work concentrated mostly on budget issues, civil rights, health care, and environmental issues, and particularly preventing oil drilling off the West Coast. Oops, well maybe Leon is a little light on military experience.
During the Kennedy years America spent 1/2 of the federal budget on defense. Today that number is 1/5 of our federal spending. So how would the legislature let Obama and Panetta destroy our military? Simple! Remember when we were going to have to shut down our wonderful government if we didn't extend its ability to increase the debt ceiling by borrowing? Americans were crying for the Republican minority to COMPROMISE. "Please don't shut down our wonderful government because you are playing political games," they cried. Well the Republicans did compromise by agreeing to huge military spending cuts unless the SUPER COMMITTEE came up with a better plan to cut spending. With such drastic cuts, assuming even the Democrats were still loyal to the defense of the USA, the Republicans thought the SUPER COMMITTEE would act reasonably and take action. Wrong! The SUPER COMMITTEE followed their leader Obama and voted "present". They punted. They "kicked the can down the road". And so here we are with our loyal President having to make the cuts to our military that the Congress voted. These mandatory cuts come after Obama got Gates to make previous cuts to downsize. So once again the Republicans took the bait, compromised, and became an accomplice in destroying the greatest nation in history.
But of course, Obama is not acting in a military vacuum. While he dismantles our forces he is making peace with the Afghanistan Taliban, with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, with the Iranian Ayatollahs, is returning Iraq to the Militant Shiites, and Libya Muslim to the same type of radical Muslims. It seems Bin Laden was a friend to the US compared to the skinny guy in the White House. With these guys all friends of Obama now we don't need a military. Right?
The Republicans are fighting back (except the 21% in Iowa who voted for a complete foreign policy idiot named Ron Paul). They are having their press secretaries make statements:
"The president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense," said Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif.
"This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs," McKeon added. "In order to justify massive cuts to our military, he has revoked the guarantee that America will support our allies, defend our interests and defy our opponents. The president must understand that the world has always had, and will always have a leader. As America steps back, someone else will step forward."
"The president comparing our defense spending to the defense spending of other countries is certainly in line with his thinking that America is just like every other country. In terms of our freedoms and our attractiveness as a target, I'm absolutely confident that our enemies do not view us as just another country," said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Timid, timid, timid. It is time to call for the IMPEACHMENT OF OBAMA, NOW!!!!!
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Awful Truth About Social Security
Folks at the Cafe have asked me to post the Social Security piece to distract from the fools that are showing their complete ignorance of FREE ENTERPRISE. Those idiots of course would be our own governor, Rick Perry, and of course, the Newt. Perry appears to be consistent in his stupidity. Newt is 90% brilliant and 10% way stupid. Right now he is caught up in his stupid phase. So here is the distraction. It also provides facts we should all know about how Washington is COMPLETELY MISMANAGING OUR RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. It clearly points up the well know fact that retirement is not a service the federal government should be involved in much less should it have access to our retirement funds. It is none of their business.
What if you went down to your local bank to check on your retirement fund? You have been paying into this fund for many years and this money should be in a very secure position to fund your future retirement. Your visit doesn't go so well. Your bank informs you they have taken the money from all retirement accounts, "The Fund", and have transferred it to the bank's general account. Not only that, they have spent all the money to cover other bank expenses. However, your friendly banker assures you that there was no need to worry, and so far they are making good on their commitments to retirees having never missed a payment.
You have several pesky little questions. First, you ask how are they paying those who are retiring? The banker says they have people like you who are paying into "The Fund", and they are using your and other folks payments into "The Fund" to pay retirees.
My next question is do you have enough payments coming in to meet your obligations to those retiring? The banker says up until this past year they had sufficient payments coming in to meet their obligations, however this year because of lower birth rates and longer life expectancies they had more demand than income, but assured me again I shouldn't worry.
Logically I asked why I shouldn't worry. The answer was the bank was calling the money they had taken and spent from "The Fund" and classified it as a loan. Their intentions and practice, so far, was to pay interest on this loan. These interest payments were making up the difference enabling them to pay the retirees.
OK, but where are you getting the money to pay the interest on "The Fund" that you took? The banker answered," but of course, we are borrowing the money to make the interest payments".
I summarized. So you have "borrowed" all the money from "The Fund" and spent the money on things other than your retirement customers. Your outflow of retirement payments are now, have been for some time, exceeding your income from retirement payments and will continue to do so in the future. At the present time, you are making up the difference by borrowing additional money from unnamed sources (like maybe in China). Correct?
One last question, how long do you think this can continue? If we can continue to borrow money to make our interest payments we see no disruption to making our promised payments to retirees for as much as 25 years.
My comment was, " that seemed like a big IF".
Folks, this is exactly the PONZI scheme (remember Bernie Madoff who is now in prison?) that the Federal Government has sneaked by the American taxpayer:
1. The Social Security Fund is non-existent. The government has loaned the money to themselves and used it to pay other expenses.
2. Current Social Security payments exceeded current receipts by $46 billion in 2010 and $43 billion in 2011.
4. The government is theoretically accruing interest on the money they took from the fund.
5. Even if the government can continue to borrow money to make up for shortfalls in revenue the theoretical fund reserves go negative in 2022 and are exhausted by 2036. These are best case numbers.
6. Unless the federal budget and deficit spending is brought under control we clearly will not be able to continue borrowing money to keep things afloat. Under current spending practices the 2036 date is a pipe dream.
And what does Obama and our current Congress do as they face these facts? They give taxpayers a Social Security Payroll tax holiday by cutting their deductions by about 1/3, and then extend this so called holiday for a second year. Of all the many places federal spending and/or taxes could be cut, these geniuses picked Social Security. Oh well if they had collected the payroll taxes, they would have just spent them for other expenses anyway.
So what do we do? How about these steps? Get Obama out. Vote in a Solid Red Congress. Reform Social Security by separating the funds from the general funds. Make intelligent changes to future retirees that would include giving them a choice to manage their own retirement funds (young people would be very smart to opt out). Make government run retirement funds in the future a safety net welfare program only. Bottom line, you just can't trust politicians with the a large complex operation like Social Security. They are not qualified, nor honest enough, to accept this kind of responsibility. Let's face it. The Social Security system has been a political scam to fund politicians spending to buy votes. They have deceived the American people, BIG TIME.
Think about it,
Jim
What if you went down to your local bank to check on your retirement fund? You have been paying into this fund for many years and this money should be in a very secure position to fund your future retirement. Your visit doesn't go so well. Your bank informs you they have taken the money from all retirement accounts, "The Fund", and have transferred it to the bank's general account. Not only that, they have spent all the money to cover other bank expenses. However, your friendly banker assures you that there was no need to worry, and so far they are making good on their commitments to retirees having never missed a payment.
You have several pesky little questions. First, you ask how are they paying those who are retiring? The banker says they have people like you who are paying into "The Fund", and they are using your and other folks payments into "The Fund" to pay retirees.
My next question is do you have enough payments coming in to meet your obligations to those retiring? The banker says up until this past year they had sufficient payments coming in to meet their obligations, however this year because of lower birth rates and longer life expectancies they had more demand than income, but assured me again I shouldn't worry.
Logically I asked why I shouldn't worry. The answer was the bank was calling the money they had taken and spent from "The Fund" and classified it as a loan. Their intentions and practice, so far, was to pay interest on this loan. These interest payments were making up the difference enabling them to pay the retirees.
OK, but where are you getting the money to pay the interest on "The Fund" that you took? The banker answered," but of course, we are borrowing the money to make the interest payments".
I summarized. So you have "borrowed" all the money from "The Fund" and spent the money on things other than your retirement customers. Your outflow of retirement payments are now, have been for some time, exceeding your income from retirement payments and will continue to do so in the future. At the present time, you are making up the difference by borrowing additional money from unnamed sources (like maybe in China). Correct?
One last question, how long do you think this can continue? If we can continue to borrow money to make our interest payments we see no disruption to making our promised payments to retirees for as much as 25 years.
My comment was, " that seemed like a big IF".
Folks, this is exactly the PONZI scheme (remember Bernie Madoff who is now in prison?) that the Federal Government has sneaked by the American taxpayer:
1. The Social Security Fund is non-existent. The government has loaned the money to themselves and used it to pay other expenses.
2. Current Social Security payments exceeded current receipts by $46 billion in 2010 and $43 billion in 2011.
4. The government is theoretically accruing interest on the money they took from the fund.
5. Even if the government can continue to borrow money to make up for shortfalls in revenue the theoretical fund reserves go negative in 2022 and are exhausted by 2036. These are best case numbers.
6. Unless the federal budget and deficit spending is brought under control we clearly will not be able to continue borrowing money to keep things afloat. Under current spending practices the 2036 date is a pipe dream.
And what does Obama and our current Congress do as they face these facts? They give taxpayers a Social Security Payroll tax holiday by cutting their deductions by about 1/3, and then extend this so called holiday for a second year. Of all the many places federal spending and/or taxes could be cut, these geniuses picked Social Security. Oh well if they had collected the payroll taxes, they would have just spent them for other expenses anyway.
So what do we do? How about these steps? Get Obama out. Vote in a Solid Red Congress. Reform Social Security by separating the funds from the general funds. Make intelligent changes to future retirees that would include giving them a choice to manage their own retirement funds (young people would be very smart to opt out). Make government run retirement funds in the future a safety net welfare program only. Bottom line, you just can't trust politicians with the a large complex operation like Social Security. They are not qualified, nor honest enough, to accept this kind of responsibility. Let's face it. The Social Security system has been a political scam to fund politicians spending to buy votes. They have deceived the American people, BIG TIME.
Think about it,
Jim
Monday, January 2, 2012
Did You Get Your GAO Christmas Report Card?
It is my humble opinion that Barack Hussein Obama knows that he will not be elected in 2012. That gives him about 12 months to implement his agenda. It is clear this agenda has one major goal: TO TAKE THE UNITED STATE AS WE KNOW IT, TO ITS KNEES (he calls in REFORM). The Obama destruction plan has several components:
1. Economics (Continued deficit spending, increased regulations and industry takeovers, and higher taxes where possible)
2. Executive Orders (Using Obama's agencies to implement policy in lieu of passing legislation)
3. Presidential Side Letters (A way to get around any congressional legislation that doesn't further his agenda)
4. Foreign Policy (Withdrawing as the leader of the free world, playing footsie with all enemy states of the US while dismantling the military with budget cuts and social experiments)
5. Using the Obama Justice Department to harrass Red states while increasing voter fraud everywhere possible
As much as I hate to bog blog readers with numbers it seems democracies don't work so well without informed citizens. To really understand what devious politicians do requires delving into the detail. Politicians on both sides of the isle go to great lengths to hide ugly facts from the American voter. Today's posting exposes the size of our country's true financial challenge. The next posting will tell the truth about Social Security.
Time and again we read that our federal debt has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product. Put simply this means our country could not pay its debts if it confiscated (taxed) all goods and services produced by the country in one full year and applied all of that revenue to the deficit. Put another way if the government spent no more than it received in revenues (you know like a balanced budget), and it put a 10% surtax on all goods and services, it would take about 9 years to pay off our debt at the current growth rate of the country. Scary, right? But this isn't half the sad story. In fact, it is only about 1/3 of the story.
Releasing information on the Friday before a big holiday is a time-tested way to bury bad news. So when the Government Accountability Office’s fiscal 2011 financial statements for the federal government were released on the Friday before Christmas, you knew there must be some big time bad news. Not only has the government created a deficit of over $15 Trillion, it has made promises way beyond that number. Pesky little promises like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and pensions.
In 2011, the cost of these promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion. Or the value of the equity in all U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there just ain't enough wealth in America to meet these promises. NOT EVEN IF OBAMA CAN GET THE MILLIONAIRES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!!
If the government followed corporate accounting rules (imagine that) , it would add the promises to the cash deficit and the real deficit would be $4.2 Trillion last year. A huge number when you realize that total federal income from taxes and fees is "only" $2.5 Trillion in 2011. In other words our spending and promised spending exceeds our tax revenues by almost a factor of 3.
For we common folks if your family made $50 thousand in 2011, and spent and made promises like the federal government, it would create debt of $84 thousand over and above your income. That's trouble!! AND OBAMA AND THE DEMS SAY THEY JUST HAVEN'T SPENT ENOUGH TO GET US OUT OF THIS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. LET'S JUST KEEP SPENDING UNTIL THE ECONOMY GETS BETTER, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE DEBT ISSUES (maybe after the election in 2012?).
The Libs say the greatest threat to our country isn't radical muslims developing nukes nor communists dictators with nukes nor financial bankruptcy driven by an entitlement state but RADICAL TEA PARTIERS. Radical in that they want a smaller federal government that spends less and with less government control over private enterprises so they can commit more resources to building an American economy that can reduce their children's debt (the only way to get out of this mess is less spending, less regulations, and economic growth rates exceeding 4% a year). Nothing threatens the ruling elite's power more than the Tea Party's radical concept that originated with the original radicals that founded this country. Evil and stupid guys like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams (you know old rich white guys with slaves). These leaders just didn't have the good of the people in their hearts like these nice and brilliant guys FDR, LBJ, Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Obama/Reid/Pelosi.
It is time for Americans to pick sides, NOT COMPROMISE. A compromise between brilliance (Jefferson) and stupidity (Obama) is just plain old fashioned dumb (Reid).
Think about it,
Jim
1. Economics (Continued deficit spending, increased regulations and industry takeovers, and higher taxes where possible)
2. Executive Orders (Using Obama's agencies to implement policy in lieu of passing legislation)
3. Presidential Side Letters (A way to get around any congressional legislation that doesn't further his agenda)
4. Foreign Policy (Withdrawing as the leader of the free world, playing footsie with all enemy states of the US while dismantling the military with budget cuts and social experiments)
5. Using the Obama Justice Department to harrass Red states while increasing voter fraud everywhere possible
As much as I hate to bog blog readers with numbers it seems democracies don't work so well without informed citizens. To really understand what devious politicians do requires delving into the detail. Politicians on both sides of the isle go to great lengths to hide ugly facts from the American voter. Today's posting exposes the size of our country's true financial challenge. The next posting will tell the truth about Social Security.
Time and again we read that our federal debt has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product. Put simply this means our country could not pay its debts if it confiscated (taxed) all goods and services produced by the country in one full year and applied all of that revenue to the deficit. Put another way if the government spent no more than it received in revenues (you know like a balanced budget), and it put a 10% surtax on all goods and services, it would take about 9 years to pay off our debt at the current growth rate of the country. Scary, right? But this isn't half the sad story. In fact, it is only about 1/3 of the story.
Releasing information on the Friday before a big holiday is a time-tested way to bury bad news. So when the Government Accountability Office’s fiscal 2011 financial statements for the federal government were released on the Friday before Christmas, you knew there must be some big time bad news. Not only has the government created a deficit of over $15 Trillion, it has made promises way beyond that number. Pesky little promises like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and pensions.
In 2011, the cost of these promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion. Or the value of the equity in all U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there just ain't enough wealth in America to meet these promises. NOT EVEN IF OBAMA CAN GET THE MILLIONAIRES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!!
If the government followed corporate accounting rules (imagine that) , it would add the promises to the cash deficit and the real deficit would be $4.2 Trillion last year. A huge number when you realize that total federal income from taxes and fees is "only" $2.5 Trillion in 2011. In other words our spending and promised spending exceeds our tax revenues by almost a factor of 3.
For we common folks if your family made $50 thousand in 2011, and spent and made promises like the federal government, it would create debt of $84 thousand over and above your income. That's trouble!! AND OBAMA AND THE DEMS SAY THEY JUST HAVEN'T SPENT ENOUGH TO GET US OUT OF THIS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. LET'S JUST KEEP SPENDING UNTIL THE ECONOMY GETS BETTER, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE DEBT ISSUES (maybe after the election in 2012?).
The Libs say the greatest threat to our country isn't radical muslims developing nukes nor communists dictators with nukes nor financial bankruptcy driven by an entitlement state but RADICAL TEA PARTIERS. Radical in that they want a smaller federal government that spends less and with less government control over private enterprises so they can commit more resources to building an American economy that can reduce their children's debt (the only way to get out of this mess is less spending, less regulations, and economic growth rates exceeding 4% a year). Nothing threatens the ruling elite's power more than the Tea Party's radical concept that originated with the original radicals that founded this country. Evil and stupid guys like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams (you know old rich white guys with slaves). These leaders just didn't have the good of the people in their hearts like these nice and brilliant guys FDR, LBJ, Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Obama/Reid/Pelosi.
It is time for Americans to pick sides, NOT COMPROMISE. A compromise between brilliance (Jefferson) and stupidity (Obama) is just plain old fashioned dumb (Reid).
Think about it,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
