¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



First family transfers wealth, avoids taxes

Obama Family Tax Shelter


BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - April 13, 2012

President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.

The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.

There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes. He has yet to propose a comprehensive plan to reform the byzantine tax code.

The Obama’s tax return indicates that the gifts, likely for their daughter’s college educations, began in 2007, when the maximum exemptible amount was $24,000 per couple. The maximum exemption has since increased to $26,000 per couple.

The Obamas paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, which would typically fall within the top federal rate of 35 percent. According to an analysis of the president’s tax return, he may have paid a lower rate than his secretary despite making more than eight times as much money as she did.

His most recent tax proposal—the so-called “Buffett Rule”—would increase taxes on about 4,000 millionaires and raise about $4.7 billion in new revenue per year, enough to cover about 0.4 percent of the projected budget deficit in 2012. Though the rule would apparently not hit the president himself.

Supporters of the rule have acknowledged that the projected revenue from the “Buffett Rule,” which the Democratic-led Senate is expected to vote down, is “not even a meaningful small amount.”

The Obama’s untaxed gift to their daughters will leave American taxpayers to subsidize the college education of the children of the multi-millionaire Obamas.




President Obama’s Secretary Paid   Higher Tax Rate Than He Did

April 13, 2012 Brendan Smialowski

President Obama today released his 2011 federal income  tax,  with he and his wife reporting an adjusted gross income of $789,674.  The Obamas  paid $162,074 in total tax – an effective federal income tax  rate of 20.5%. The  Obamas also reported donating approximately 22% of  their income to charity — $172,130.

President Obama has been making a big political push for the “Buffett Rule,” which would require millionaires to pay a minimum of 30%  of  their income in taxes. To illustrate the point, the president has  pointed out  that billionaire investor Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate  than does his  secretary.

President Obama’s secretary, Anita Decker Breckenridge,  makes  $95,000 a year. White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage tells ABC News  that  Breckenridge “pays a slightly higher rate this year on her  substantially lower  income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax  code and ask the  wealthiest to pay their fair share. ”

It should be noted that president would not be impacted by  the  Buffett Rule, though he would see his taxes go up if the so-called  Bush tax cuts  on higher income wage-earners were allowed to expire, as the  president says he  wants.

-Jake Tapper


Let's look at this: OBAMA made  $789,674 and gave $172,130 to charity. That leaves $617,544 taxable income. From  that he took enough deductions to bring his income down to $142,700 at the VERY  top to mean he paid in the 20% bracket. So he wrote off $464,844 of his income  for mortgage interest, taxes and other non-taxable ventures.

It astounds me that he can  bIitch and whine about the rich getting all these breaks but he da.mn sure takes  them himself. No one made him do it - it was his  choice.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Solar: Fake Energy Provided by  Fake President

By John Ransom



This is the year that the fake energy provided by our fake  president finally collide and go boom.

So, get ready for a new round of green bankruptcies, as Europe  trims back subsidies for solar companies and taxpayers lose their appetite for  subsidizing green power.


“The mini-bubble resulting from the rush to cash in on solar  subsidies in European and U.S. markets is ending, as feed-in tariffs drop in  Europe while loan guarantee and tax credit programs tighten up in the U.S.,” says a new report from Bank of America Merrill Lynch according to CNBC.com.

Germany is dialing back subsidies for solar this month by 29  percent with subsequent decreases each month, according to  Bloomberg.com.

Rasmussen has recently released a  survey of voters that show a diminishing number of voters support subsidizing  the production of the Chevy Volt.

Only 29 percent of likely voters agree with Obama’s latest  proposal to include a $10,000 subsidy in the federal budget to support the  purchase of every electric vehicle.

The survey found that 58 percent oppose the plan, while 13  percent remain undecided.


And make no mistake, without subsidies solar, electric  vehicles, wind power and other alternatives remain a  chimera.    

“Steven Cortes, CNBC contributor and founder of Veracruz  Research, also sees solar stocks declining further and wonders about the impact  of the recent natural gas boom on the sector.

“’As much as I love sun, I hate the solar space. This is not a  real business, it’s a political construct,’” Cortes said on Fast Money  Wednesday. “’And they can’t compete with natural gas at these  levels.’”

According to the Associated Press the U.S. now has  2.433 trillion cubic feet in storage.

“That figure is 48.3 percent more than the five-year average,  the Energy Department said,” reports the AP. “Natural gas fell 3 cents to finish  at $2.27 per 1,000 cubic feet in New York. The price has fallen about 27 percent  this year and is at the lowest level in a decade.”

Last week Abound Solar announced it would lay off half its  workforce despite receiving a $400 million loan guarantee from the Department of  Energy last year. The rating agency Fitch’s hit Abound over failures to meet  stated goals, old technology, calling the company “highly speculative” according  to ABCNews.

Reports ABC:

It remains way too early to determine whether Abound is  poised to follow the trajectory of the best-known solar manufacturer to receive  a sizeable government loan -- Solyndra, the California firm that filed for  bankruptcy in September after having burned through the bulk of its $535 million  federal loan.


However, there is an old saying in the market that the tape  doesn’t lie.

And the tape on solar companies is horrendous.

“Solar Trust of America LLC, which holds the development  rights for the world's largest solar power project,” reported Reuters earlier this month, “on  Monday filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency  proceedings in Germany.”

Although the Department of Energy was eager to approve Solar  Trust for $2 billion worth of government loan guarantees, the company rejected  the offer in a scramble to find technology that would actually allow their plant  to work. Its amazing that at the time the Department of Energy was pushing a  loan to the company, the company was realizing the equipment on which the loan  was predicated wouldn’t work.

Once billed as the brain trust behind one of the largest solar  projects ever- the Blythe Solar Power Project in California’s Coachella Valley- Solar Trust of America will end its government-sponsored Gong Show appearance  with the tinny reverberation of failure that will echo for the whole  industry.

“The Oakland-based company has held rights for the  1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project in the southern California desert,” writes Reuters, “which last April won a conditional commitment for a $2.1  billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. It is unclear how the  bankruptcy will affect that project. Solar Trust did not receive the loan  guarantee.”

While Obama administration was denied the opportunity to throw  money at Solar Trust- only by the grace of the company’s own good judgment- make  no mistake, Obama’s policy of throwing money at other of these uneconomic,  sunshine and blue sky investments, is responsible for the bankruptcy as much as  any other factor; actually, probably more so.

So far, the administration has made $34 billion in loan  guarantees to various green energy projects, many of them in a solar industry  already rocked by over-supply and poor economics.

What solar needs now is fewer start-ups, less investment, not  more. And everyone outside of the government central-failures understands this.  The more money that’s been thrown at solar, the smaller the industry has  become.

In the second quarter of 2008 First Solar (Symbol: FSLR) briefly touched $300 per share.  Today it trades at $27.49. That equals losses of about $24 billion in market  capitalization in just four years.

In April of last year Trina Solar LTD (Symbol: TSL) was trading just under $30 and is  now trading at about $7.31. Earnings estimates have gone in the last few months  from Trina losing about 17 cents per share for 2012 to losing about 63 cents per  share.

The Guggenheim Solar ETF (Symbol: TAN) has also moved down from around  $300 per share in mid 2008, until it trades now at $22.48.

TAN Chart

TAN data by YCharts

And the fundamentals aren’t getting better for solar soon,  because solar can’t compete with coal-fired or nuclear generated  electric.

“Fewer solar panels will be installed this year,” reports  Bloomberg “as the first drop in more than a decade worsens a glut of the unsold  devices that’s already slashed margins at the top five manufacturers, an analyst  survey showed... Without government incentives, even record low prices for solar  panels may not be cheap enough to encourage solar farm developers and homeowners  to install them in the volumes needed to work through the glut, said  Rozwadowski, the most pessimistic analyst in the survey. He expects  installations to drop to 20.7 gigawatts.”

It’s important to note that the poor performance of the solar  industry came at a time when government financial support has been at an  all-time high world-wide. It only goes to show that politics and public policy  are poor substitutes for free market economics.

Expect the solar industry to continue to crash and burn as  government money continues to dry up along with public support.

Because there is no amount of money fakery that can cover the  mess our fake president has made of his fake pet industry: solar  power.  

"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak  peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me  email and I just might mention you on Sunday.  



John Ransom is the Finance  Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook:  bamransom.
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


31 / 03 / 2012 Miryam Lindberg


Estos días parece que cada vez son más los que pasan por las gasolineras mirando más detenidamente a ver quién tiene el precio más bajo antes lanzarse a llenar el tanque. Y es que los precios de la gasolina están subiendo imparablemente.

El presidente Obama afirma que no es su culpa, aunque si los precios estuvieran bajando seguramente diría que es gracias a su política. Los políticos son expertos en llevarse las glorias ajenas y echarle la culpa a los demás de sus errores. Pero, sí, el ocupante de la Casa Blanca generalmente influye mucho en el precio porque sea cual sea su política, el mercado está siempre atento a las decisiones y planes de acción de los gobiernos. Y en este caso, la política de la administración Obama ha sido una de hacerle las cosas difíciles a la industria petrolera.

Si no es tratando de subirle los impuestos (que al final los paga el consumidor), entonces es no dando permisos para la exploración y explotación de nuestras propias reservas, o bloqueando el oleoducto Keystone XL, por poner sólo algunos ejemplos.



Como indica el Gráfico de la Semana, la suma de las políticas de esta administración han tenido un fuerte efecto de subida en el precio que hoy pagamos por la gasolina. Mientras que durante la administración Bush y a pesar de la convulsa situación con los atentados del 11 de septiembre y las guerra de Afganistán, los precios de la gasolina fluctuaron, con la administración Obama, la subida es imparable porque el presidente ha decidido cerrar el grifo del petróleo nacional.




OBAMA"Wanted Higher Gas Prices, and He Got Them"

Los precios suben cuando hay inseguridad en el mercado sobre la continua disponibilidad del combustible que la nación necesita para operar. La cosa es ideológica, el credo verde del presidente es invertir en industrias que siguen siendo poco rentables e ir diciendo medias verdades como por ejemplo que incrementar la producción de petróleo lleva demasiado tiempo y no impactaría en el mercado durante al menos una década. Como indica nuestro experto en temas de energía, Nicolas Loris: “Este ha sido el mantra de las huestes antiperforaciones y cuanto más tiempo escuchen los políticos el mensaje, más tiempo permanecerán sin desarrollarse los recursos petroleros de la nación”.

Entonces, ¿qué hacemos? Como indica el analista de Heritage Mike Brownfield:


En lugar de elegir ganadores y perdedores, el gobierno federal debería dejar que el mercado libre haga su trabajo. Además de salirse del asunto de financiar la investigación, que es mejor dejarla en manos del sector privado, eso también significa acabar con los créditos tributarios específicos para el petróleo, las energías renovables, la energía nuclear, los combustibles y vehículos alternativos, el carbón avanzado y la gasificación avanzada. El siguiente paso para el gobierno federal es abrir el acceso a las fuentes de energía del país y acabar con los innecesarios y demasiado onerosos regímenes reguladores que obstaculizan la producción de energía. Y el presidente debería aprobar el oleoducto Keystone XL y abrir las tierras federales para la exploración energética.


Este es un plan de acción que mandaría los precios del combustible hacia abajo.


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Good Economists
By Walter E. Williams

It's difficult to be a good economist and simultaneously be perceived as compassionate. To be a good economist, one has to deal with reality. To appear compassionate, often one has to avoid unpleasant questions, use "caring" terminology and view reality as optional.


Affordable housing and health care costs are terms with considerable emotional appeal that politicians exploit but have absolutely no useful meaning or analytical worth. For example, can anyone tell me in actual dollars and cents the price of an affordable car, house or myomectomy? It's probably more pleasant to pretend that there is universal agreement about what is or is not affordable.

If you think my criticism of affordability is unpleasant, you'll hate my vision of harm. A good economist recognizes that harm is not a one-way street; it's reciprocal. For example, if I own a lot and erect a house in front of your house and block your view of a beautiful scene, I've harmed you; however, if I am prevented from building my house in front of yours, I'm harmed. Whose harm is more important? You say, "Williams, you can't tell." You can stop me from harming you by persuading some government thugs to stop me from building. It's the same thing with smoking. If I smoke a cigarette, you're harmed -- or at least bothered. If I'm prevented from smoking a cigarette, I'm harmed by reduced pleasure. Whose harm is more important? Again, you can't tell. But as in the building example, the person who is harmed can use government thugs to have things his way.

How many times have we heard that "if it will save just one human life, it's worth it" or that "human life is priceless"? Both are nonsense statements. If either statement were true, we'd see lower speed limits, bans on auto racing and fewer airplanes in the sky. We can always be safer than we are. For example, cars could be produced such that occupants could survive unscathed in a 50-mph head-on collision, but how many of us could buy such a car? Don't get me wrong; I might think my life is priceless, but I don't view yours in the same light. I admire Greta Garbo's objectivity about her life. She said, "I'm a completely worthless woman, and no man should risk his life for me."

Speaking of worthlessness, I'd be worthless as an adviser to either the White House or Congress because if they asked me what they should do to get the economy going, I'd answer, "Do nothing!" Let's look at it. Between 1787 and 1930, our nation suffered both mild and severe economic downturns. There was no intervention to stimulate the economy, but the economy always recovered.

During the 1930s, there were massive interventions, starting with President Herbert Hoover and later with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their actions turned what would have been a sharp three- or four-year economic downturn into a 10-year affair. In 1930, when Hoover began to "fix" the economy, unemployment was 6 percent. FDR did even more to "fix" the economy. As a result, unemployment remained in double digits throughout the decade and reached 20 percent in 1939. President Roosevelt blamed the high unemployment on his predecessor. Presidential blaming of predecessors is a practice that continues to this day.

You say, "Williams, the White House and Congress should do something." The track record of doing nothing is pretty good compared with doing something. None of our economic downturns in the century and a half prior to 1930 lasted as long as the Great Depression.

It would be political suicide for a politician to follow my counsel -- and for good reason. Americans have been miseducated into thinking that Roosevelt's New Deal saved our economy. That miseducation extends to most academics, including economists, at our universities, who are arrogant enough to believe that it's possible for a few people in Washington to have the information and knowledge necessary to manage the economic lives of 313 million people. Good economists recognize our limitations, making us not nice people to be around.

Walter E. WilliamsDr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of 'Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?' and 'Up from the Projects: An Autobiography.'
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Top 10 Obama flimflams


This list of half-truths, sleight-of-hands, and outright lies are a good reason why Obama doesn't deserve a title more ennobling than huckster-in-chief.

1. Unprecedented shorthand

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on ObamaCare, the President came forth with his thoroughly discredited analysis that it would be “unprecedented” for the high court to overturn a congressional action, perhaps thinking we all forgot about Marbury v. Madison (1803). After the nation's laughter subsided, White House spokesman Jay Carney explained away the fumble, saying “the President was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.”

2. Invoking Reagan

Obama tried citing President Reagan's tax policies as a cover for his own tax-hiking fervor, referring to Reagan as “that wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.” Not even close, Mr. President. We all know that Reagan cut the marginal rates for the top income bracket from 70 percent to 28 percent and reduced the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, creating an economic boom.

3. Keystone cop-out

President Obama was obviously stung by the backlash to his Keystone Pipeline decision, as even his union backers were aghast that he jettisoned a jobs-creating project. Obama tried to change perceptions by taking credit for the Southern leg of the pipeline, from Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico. But the Pipeline to Nowhere was already in the works before Obama said he green-lighted it and, besides, it will not bring any Canadian oil to the U.S. Market.

4. False Rutherford B. Hayes smear

Obama's campaign rhetoric reached back to the 19th Century to make a point about Republicans opposing new technology. Obama said, “One of my predecessors, Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone, ‘It’s a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?’ That's why he's not on Mount Rushmore because he’s looking backwards.” Actually, Hayes was something of a high-tech geek for his era, introducing the first telephone to the White House and hobnobbing with Thomas A. Edison.

5. Weathering budget cuts

It is a tried and true Democratic tactic to exaggerate proposed Republican budget cuts -- which are usually just slowdowns in future proposed spending. Obama got in on the act, saying that under Paul Ryan's budget, “Our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn't be able to afford to **noallow** new satellites.” Hmm, less accurate weather forecasts -- sounds like a prescription for more global warming alarmism.

6. Poisoning children

Another liberal strategy is to demonize the opposition, making the GOP sound like evil maniacs. Obama recently implied that the Republican vision includes “poisoning our kids” by allowing higher levels of pollution. No, Mr. President -- the problem that our kids will inherit is the crushing debt caused by your out-of-control spending.

7. Buffett gimmick

Even the President admits that the so-call ed Buffett rule is a gimmick that would do virtually nothing to close the budget deficit. But that hasn't stopped him from repeatedly trotting out the plan to make sure the very rich pay a higher marginal tax rate than their secretaries. Even Obama can't figure out how to do that in real life, as his own tax returns show him paying a 20.5 percent tax rate, lower than his own secretary.

8. Blaming others

Obama has perfected the blame-game maneuver, saying his dismal record in office was the fault of George Bush, the Japanese, or the Arab Spring. Our favorite Obama excuse was his attempt to deflect attention from his poor job-creation record by saying it was the fault of Automatic Teller Machines putting bank clerks out of business.

9. Rhetorical overkill

Obama is cranking up the rhetoric, calling Republicans “members of the flat Earth society,” mocking Mitt Romney for using the word “marvelous,” and calling Paul Ryan's budget a “Trojan Horse” for “social Darwinism.” Of course, running a campaign that focused on the issues would require the President to defend his first term's record.

10. War on women

Obama is attacking Republicans for waging a war against women, which in reality is nothing more than Democratic talking point. Obama tried to show solidarity with female voters by bemoaning higher dry-cleaning bills for women, saying, “We haven't gotten on the dry cleaning thing yet. I mean, I know that is still frustrating. I'm sure.” Yes, Mr. Obama, focus your efforts on the dry-cleaning crisis and quit meddling with healthcare and the economy.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

5 Devastating Numbers That Show Obama's Incompetence

Five Devastating Numbers That Show  Obama's Incompetence

By John Hawkins 4/24/2012


Whether you've had some form of head trauma that has caused  you to like Barack Obama or like all good hearted people, you can't stand him,  his performance has objectively been terrible. Of course, we can debate WHY his  performance has been so bad. His supporters would probably blame Bush,  Republicans in Congress, ATM machines, fairy dust shortages and people  forgetting to click their heels together three times before saying, "There's no  place like home." On the other hand, people who haven't been drinking Barney  Frankosaurus brand Kool-Aid might note that if Obama is going to blame  Republicans for everything that happens while he's President, we might as well  just replace him with a Republican. Whatever the case may be, here are five  devastating numbers that show how poorly America has fared under Barack Obama's  watch.

1) 3 years and 2 months: "The National  Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months  in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush  presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush  presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took  office."


Keep in mind that in 2008, when Obama was in full "hope,  change, and bullflop" mode, he actually called Bush "unpatriotic" for  adding so much to the debt which is kind of like being called a traitor by  Benedict Arnold.

2) $9.5 trillion: At a certain point, it does  get a little tedious to keep hammering home how much debt we're piling up, but  it's such an urgent problem that produces so little reaction, that it's nearly  impossible to do otherwise. It's almost like being chained to people in a house  that's burning down, but they're too busy camping out on the couch eating chips  and watching American Idol to bother to save themselves.

This country has already lost its AAA rating, we're 15  trillion dollars in debt, we have 100 trillion dollars in unfunded Social  Security and Medicare liabilities, and barring a major course correction, we're  going to default on our debts and start into a downward spiral that this nation  will not recover from in the lifetime of anyone reading this column. So what is  the Obama Administration doing to tackle an issue so serious that it makes every other problem we have pale  in significance?




Absolutely stunning video!   Please.. take the time.. it's only 4 minutes! Absolutely incredible! This is  the  only video anyone ever needs to watch!   IfIWantedAmericatoFail



The Congressional Budget Office on Friday  released its analysis of President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal and found it  does less to rein in deficits and the debt than the administration had  estimated. CBO estimates Obama's plan would produce 10 years of deficits  totaling $9.5 trillion. By 2021, it would increase the debt held by the public  to 87 percent of gross domestic product.


This is a "sit in the burning house until the roof falls in  and we all die" budget. If we add another $9.5 trillion to the debt over the  next 10 years, it will mean that generations of Americans will have to grow up  in dire poverty, wear sack cloth, and have to eat their dogs to make it through  the winter. On the upside, if American children do have to eat Fido, it may mean they'll grow up to be President  one day.

3) 1091 days: We're now up to 1,091 days  without a budget despite the fact that it's the most basic function of Congress  and it's required by law. There's a simple reason for this: Democrats don't want  to offend the general public by increasing spending or their base by cutting  spending; so they've decided to do nothing. This is kind of like a police  department full of officers who've decided that arresting people is too much of  a hassle; so they're going to sit in the station, eat doughnuts, drink coffee,  and play Angry Birds all day. Worse yet, when Republicans like Paul Ryan have  presented responsible budgets that don't go far enough, but are at least valiant  attempts to take the country in the right direction, they've been criticized by  Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. In other words, not only are the  Democrats not going to do their jobs, they don't want Paul Ryan trying to do  their jobs and to top it all off -- they then complain that the Republicans are  blocking THEM. What a perverse political world it is that we live in when the  Democrats have decided that their best chance of keeping their jobs is to refuse  to do their jobs and then blame the other side for their adamant refusal to  remove their own thumbs from their behinds.

4) $2,170: One of the great ironies of this  election is the still rabid support that black Americans have for Barack Obama.  This is kind of like Columbine High School throwing a "We Sure Do Miss You"  Memorial Rally for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

When Mr. Obama was inaugurated black  unemployment was 12.6%. 36 months later, it is at a depression era level  15.8%.


* Black teenage unemployment is a jaw dropping 42.3  percent.

* In October 2010, blacks accounted for 22.6 percent of the  then 40.5 million Americans who received food stamp benefits each month. That  figure was projected to rise in 2011. Mark Rank of Washington University  suggests a whopping 90 percent of black children may eventually live in  households that need food stamps.

* In 2007, before Obama took office, white households had a  median net worth of $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households. By the  end of 2009, the median net worth for white households plummeted 24% to $97,860.  But for black households, it dropped 83% to $2,170. The  Chicago Sun-Times called it, “The Disappearing Black Middle Class.”



If a Republican President did the sort of damage to black  Americans that Barack Obama has, it would be called a hate crime.

5) 5 Million: The average unemployment rate  during George Bush's time in office was roughly 5.3% as compared to 8.2% today,  which is part of the longest streak of over 8% unemployment since the Great  Depression. However, because of the way the unemployment rate is calculated,  even those horrific numbers don't give you the full sense of the Mt. Krakatoa-like havoc  that Barack Obama has wreaked on the job market.

When the recession supposedly officially  ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still  65.7%.


In the latest, much celebrated unemployment report, the labor  force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S.  history.  That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans  have fled the workforce in hopeless despair.

The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted as in  the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either.  They may  desperately need and want jobs.  They may be in poverty, as many  undoubtedly are, with America suffering today more people in poverty than in the  entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty.

In other words, there are 5 million Americans who not only  lost their jobs, but who became so discouraged trying to find a job that they  just gave up. That's definitely a "change," but the only "hope" at this point is  that Obama will be voted out of office so that those people will be able to get  back into the labor market.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


A Recovery That Never   Comes

By Jeffrey Folks

Obama studied  and has used the soul less tactics of Saul Alinsky to destroy political enemies.  They are currently using the Alinsky tactic of ridicule to destroy Republican  candidates as well as alienate and marginalize conservative black  Americans.



Absolutely stunning video!  Please.. take the time.. it's only 4 minutes! Absolutely incredible! This is the  only video anyone ever needs to watch!  IfIWantedAmericatoFail



The President has been promising an economic   recovery ever since 2008, when he promised to create 5 million green jobs and  to  "act quickly to help people stay in their homes." With all the promises  Obama  made, many voters who supported him expected the economy to begin  turning around  early in 2009. But then, shortly after his election, Obama  let it be known that  the economy had been driven "into a ditch" deeper  than he had imagined, and the  recovery would take some time. Then he  discovered that the economy he inherited  was not just in a ditch, it was  actually a "mess" as well. There were always new  excuses for why the  recovery never came.

Now it seems, just as the President  was  prepared to declare "mission accomplished," the economy is slipping  back into  the ditch, only it's no longer George Bush's ditch. This ditch  is entirely of  Obama's making. After exhibiting a few "green shoots"  earlier this year -- the  first real signs of improvement in three years --  the economy is slowing once  again. Unemployment and GDP growth are both  declining, not improving. Even the  President is now   admitting there will be "ups and downs" and  he's  "got a lot more work to do."

The latest indicators point to an  economy  that is slowing if not headed back into recession. March  employment numbers were  worse than any economist surveyed by   Bloomberg imagined. 120,000 new jobs are not  even  enough to absorb new entrants in the workforce, much less to bring  down  unemployment rates. Strangely, the official  unemployment  rate came down from 8.3 to 8.2%, but it did so because a  quarter million  Americans left the workforce, many of them filing for  disability benefits or  choosing to retire  early.

Not only is unemployment high, under  this  President those who are still working have seen their incomes decline by   $3000 on average.  Pumped  into the economy over the last three and a half years, those lost  wages would  amount to $1.575 trillion. That's even more than Obama  squandered on his  so-called stimulus in 2009, and it would have been spent  a lot more wisely had  it been left in the hands of private   citizens.

An extra $6,000 per family amounts  to  almost half of a typical mortgage payment. By one   estimate, 26,230,000 foreclosures could have  been  prevented or significantly delayed if Obama's $787 billion stimulus  funding had  remained in private hands. Had wages not declined in aggregate  by $1.575  trillion, homeowners would have retained twice the  income needed to  prevent an anticipated 25 million   foreclosures.



Dutifully following the Alinsky   model  of   chaos-anarchy-nihilism and psychological projection   (assigning  your  true evil  motives to your enemies), Obama’s   policies  have purposely  exacerbated our  economic crisis  to  Great Depression  levels and has started  America toward  a   Marxist, European-sstyle  health-care   system.

Yet this  President  has not even acknowledged the suffering of every American worker  whose income is  $3,000 less than it was when he took office. Obama is so  extraordinarily  arrogant, and so detached, that the widespread suffering  of ordinary people  makes no impression on him. At the same time, he rushes  to attend to the wishes  of billionaire green energy investors, union  bosses, and environmental activists -- the very ones who have caused America's  economy to  stagnate.

Things are bad at present, but they  aren't  likely to get better anytime soon. Respected forecaster IHS Global  Insight predicts   that the economy will slow to 2.1% GDP growth  by  July. Given current policies, with Obama's plan for huge tax increases  and with  new regulations scheduled to take effect after the election, the  long-term  outlook is not any better. For all of 2012, BusinessWire  predicts U.S. GDP   growth of 2.2% and for 2013-2016 only   2.3%.

To put that in   perspective, U.S. long-term GDP growth, excluding periods of recession,  has  averaged 4% over the past 200 years. President Obama inherited an  economy that  was already in recovery by the end of the first quarter of  2009. But since Obama  took office, GDP growth has averaged   1.42%, about a third of  what  one would expect.



Margaret    Thatcher: "El socialismo dura  hasta  que  se  les acaba el  dinero de  otros"

O como  dijo    Churchill:   "El socialismo  es  la  filosofía del fracaso, el credo de los  ignorantes, el   evangelio  de la  envidia y su virtud es el  reparto igualitario de  la     miseria."

That low level  of  growth might be enough to force millions of Americans into unwelcome  retirement,  but it is not enough to bring the actual jobless rate  down. It's not  even enough to absorb the millions who are about to  graduate this  spring.

Obama has failed to deliver on the  most  important promise of the 2008 campaign: his promise of jobs and  prosperity for  all. Now he is repeating that promise, but like the child  who cried wolf, no one  really believes him. Americans have been waiting  for a vigorous economic  recovery for 39 months, and this president has  failed to deliver. All we've had  is one excuse after another. It's George  Bush's fault. It's Greece's fault. It's  the Japanese tsunami. It's  corporations sitting on their cash. It's Big Banks  refusing to lend. It's  the price of gas. Obama has more excuses than Rihanna has  Facebook  friends.

But  excuses  don't bring about an economic recovery. Not until Obama's  anti-growth policies  are reversed will America return to normal GDP  growth.That means ending handouts for losers like green  energy, public sector  unions, and socialized medicine, and allowing the  free market to return to a  normal business cycle. At this point in the  cycle, GDP growth should be closer  to 5% and unemployment down to   5.5%, as they were under George Bush during  his  fourth year in office. Instead they stand at 2.4% (for the last half  of 2011)  and 8.2%, respectively.

For the ordinary American,  things  just get worse, but Obama keeps mumbling "be patient" and laying  the blame  elsewhere. Tax the rich, he shouts, and that will make things  better. How will  taxing the rich create jobs? Or making inflammatory  speeches in front of the  United Auto Workers, or throwing yourself into  the Trayvon Martin case by  saying, "If I had a son, he would look like  Trayvon"? That kind of divisive  rhetoric does not create a single job. It  only divides and weakens the  country. 

More Americans  have  lost their jobs and their homes, and seen their incomes decline under  Obama than  under any president in history, and all of this in just one  term. Yet this  President, who has destroyed the dream of success for  so  many, imagines he has "a lot more work to  do." Just  imagine how many dreams Obama could kill in another four   years.


Jeffrey Folks is the author of many  books  on American culture, including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).


Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Seven Of The Most Disturbing Quotes From Members Of The Obama Administration

Townhall.com ^ | April 28, 2012 | John Hawkins


Birds of a feather flock together and so when we see Barack Obama stacking his cabinet with radicals, it tells us a lot about his mentality. Of course, the fact that his entire term in office has been nothing but a slow motion evisceration of the American dream should tell you a lot about how he thinks, too -- but a little more evidence is always welcome. Take a look at these quotes from members of Barack Obama's administration and then ask yourself what sort of man WANTS people like this to help him govern the American people?

1) "Somewhat more broadly, I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law." -- Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama Administration. Yes, we have someone in charge of regulations in D.C. who thinks pigs should be able to sue farmers and cats should be able to sue their owners. Do you think it's a coincidence that the cost of business keeps skyrocketing under Obama because of all the new regulations?

2) "Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you." -- Joe Biden, Vice President. When this is how the Vice President of the United States thinks, is it any wonder that this country may only be a decade away from defaulting on our debtsand heading into an economic death spiral that we'll never recover from in the lifespan of anyone reading this column?

3) "There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer." -- Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. Yes, the butcher of Syria is a real "reformer," isn't he? If you want to know why our foreign policy has been all bowing, "leading from behind," and chaos, look no further than our Secretary of State who knew nothing about foreign policy going in, but made a career out of being married to the right man.

4) "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." -- Eric Holder, Attorney General. Eric Holder is a throwback to the bad old days in America, when whether you got justice or not depended on the color of your skin. Is it any wonder he doesn't care about Mexicans or a white border patrol agent who lost his life because of Operation Fast and Furious? Is it a surprise that Holder turned a blind eye to the New Black Panthers engaging in voter intimidation and putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head?

5) "When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — (Obama) charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering." -- Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator. When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, he said, "That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind."Well, while Obama goes on and on about "investment," "science," and "the future," we've actually taken one giant leap backwards since we no longer have a manned space program. Guess we needed to save that money to funnel into the businesses of people who contribute to Obama's campaign.

6) "One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society." -- John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. So, we have a man with the morals of Joseph Mengele advising the President on science. It also shouldn't be lost on anyone that while Obama is yammering on about a "war on women," he has someone on his staff who has come out in favor of FORCED ABORTIONS.

7) "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." -- Steven Chu, Energy Secretary. Ever wonder why gas prices are so high under Obama? Could it be because Obama's Energy Secretary wants to dramatically increase the price of gas? Gas is more than $8 a gallon in most of Western Europe. Guess that gives them something to shoot for if Obama gets a second term.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


LUCHA CONTRA LA POBREZA El triunfo del capitalismo

Por José Carlos Rodríguez

El Banco Mundial acaba de publicar su informe Indicadores Mundiales de Desarrollo 2012, donde indaga en si se está avanzando en la consecución de los Objetivos del Milenio.

Son ocho esos objetivos, el último de los cuales es la creación de un gobierno económico mundial, del que la propia institución, claro está, no quedaría muy lejos. El primero es el más importante: reducir la pobreza extrema y el hambre a la mitad en 2015, teniendo como referencia los índices de 1990.

El informe de 2012 sólo tiene datos hasta 2008, aunque cuenta con datos provisionales hasta 2010. Los datos son relevantes en sí mismos, ya que la reducción de la pobreza en el mundo es el primer problema al que nos enfrentamos. Y también son relevantes para observar en qué medida contribuye el capitalismo a tal objetivo.

¿Qué dicen los datos? Mirémoslos en conjunto. Trazada la línea de la pobreza extrema en 1,25 dólares al día (dólares constantes de 2005 y en paridad del poder de compra), en 1981 el 52,2 por ciento de la población mundial quedaba por debajo de ella. En 1990, que es cuando se fija el punto de partida de los objetivos del milenio, el porcentaje era ya nueve puntos inferior: 43,1 por ciento. Cayó después otros nueve puntos en nueve años (34,1 por ciento en 1999), y doce en los nueve siguientes (22,4 por ciento en 2008, último año para el que hay datos completos).

El Banco Mundial dice:

Teniendo en cuenta los puntos de partida de 1990, el progreso se ha acelerado en la última década, arrancando a millones de personas de la pobreza, llevando a millones de niños a la escuela y reduciendo drásticamente la pérdida de vidas humanas debida a causas que se pueden prevenir.

Lo cierto es que en 2008 casi se logra el objetivo de reducción de la pobreza extrema previsto para 2015. Además,

las estimaciones preliminares de 2010 muestran que la tasa de pobreza extrema cayó aún más, con lo que se ha alcanzado el objetivo global (...) de reducir la pobreza mundial cinco años antes.

Siempre se señalan otros aspectos de la vida que indican carencias. Son aspectos distintos de la pobreza, y a medida que ésta va remitiendo esos otros problemas también lo hacen. Por ejemplo, la mortalidad en los países en desarrollo ha pasado de 98 por mil nacimientos a 63 en 2010.

Pero la incidencia del capitalismo en la pobreza se ve aún mejor si miramos la evolución por regiones. El Extremo Oriente ha sido la zona que con más fervor ha abrazado el capitalismo en las últimas décadas. Pues bien, ahí la pobreza se ha reducido del 77,2 por ciento del total de la población en 1981 al 14,3 de 2008 (del 84 al 13,1 en China). La región más orillada por la globalización, la que más se ha mantenido al margen del comercio internacional, viene siendo el África Subsahariana, si bien a partir del cambio de siglo las cosas han empezado a cambiar. Es la que padece el peor índice de pobreza; de hecho, aumentó entre 1981 y 1993 (del 51,5 al 59,4 por ciento), si bien luego –curiosamente, a medida que se ha ido abriendo al resto del mundo– se ha reducido, lentamente en un principio (57,9 por ciento en 1999) y luego ya más rápidamente (47,5 por ciento en 2008).

En definitiva, año a año se confirma que el capitalismo está rescatando de la pobreza a millones y millones de personas, y a una velocidad desconocida en la historia. La mejora es una aspiración legítima de la humanidad, y el progreso material no sólo es bueno por sí, sino que está asociado a otros bienes morales que también consideramos valiosos. El capitalismo, la economía de mercado, la producción libre y el libre intercambio están en el centro de esa ingente transformación que se está produciendo tan lejos de donde vivimos.


© Instituto Juan de Mariana

Mensajes: 1,333
Registrado: ‎09-17-2009