Sunday, March 13, 2011

THE NOT SO COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO LIBERALISM


You "will" pay $5 a gallon + again and you won't complain loud enough to make a difference, RIGHT!
Here's an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information :

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the

Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

 Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration

(EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5...3 trillion.

"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada .

For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves..... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!

U.. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about

the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:

Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.
By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!

GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911



MILTON FRIEDMAN...
"When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger -- there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector.


Thursday, February 24, 2011

GENIUS IDIOTS...EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM



SOME OF YOU WILL APPRECIATE THIS AND SOME OF YOU WILL NOT.. I DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR THIS BECAUSE ALL OF IT IS TRUE...

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W.. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

If George Bush had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse would you think him an idiot?

If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W.. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W.. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 24 months -- so you'll have one year and ten months to come up with an answer.

Every statement in the above is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

Facts and Talking Points for the Wisconsin Budget Showdown



Compiled from memos distributed by Governor Scott Walker and the Wisconsin GOP

Government employee union reform proposals in Gov. Walker’s budget repair bill:
  • Limits collective bargaining for most government sector employees to wages only, with wages capped to inflation;
  • Union members given the opportunity to vote every year to keep their union;
  • State can no longer collect union dues;
  • Requires union members to contribute 5.8% of their salary toward their pensions and 12.6% to the cost of their health insurance premiums.
    • The comparable nationwide employee healthcare contribution is 20% according to the BLS.
    • The comparable employee contribution for retirement was 7.5% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute
The bottom line:
  • This is about balancing the budget;
  • Compared to the national average, it is a modest proposal to ask government workers to contribute to their healthcare and pension;
  • The Governor’s full proposal will save $300 million and prevent approximately 5,500 layoffs of state workers and a similar amount of local government employees and teachers. As a result the Governor’s budget will not include furloughs or layoffs;
  • Workers will save money because union dues will not be required or collected by the government;
  • This bill has had over 17 hours of public hearings and vigorously debated. It is time for a vote;
Public sector vs. private sector fact sheet:
  • The average employer contribution for private sector retirement plans is 5.3% of payroll. The employer portion of the contribution for the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) ranges between 10.55% and 13.3% of payroll (WPRI report: The Imbalance Between Public and Private Pensions in Wisconsin).
  • The Milwaukee Public School system spends up to $26,846 per year to provide family health insurance coverage for teachers. The nationwide average for family health insurance coverage for all public and private employers is only $13,770 (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Sept 12, 2010 article entitled: Public workers' generous benefits come at a price).
  • Nationwide, all public and private employees pay an average of 29% of their annual health care premiums. Milwaukee Public School teachers pay only 8% on average. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Sept 12, 2010 article entitled: Public workers' generous benefits come at a price).
  • Harley Davidson union concessions included a seven year pay freeze and a higher health care contribution. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel September 13, 2010 article entitled: Harley workers OK deal)
  • President of Mercury Marine shortly after contract ratification: "As we've stated throughout this important process, comprehensive changes to wages, benefits and operational flexibility are necessary for Mercury to effectively compete in a smaller and fundamentally changed marketplace." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel September 4, 2009 article entitled: Mercury Marine union approves concessions).
  • Currently state employees pay between 4% and 6% of their health care costs.
  • Currently most state employees contribute nothing to their pension.

Monday, February 21, 2011

On Wisconsin's Governor!!!!

A Short Comment on Public Unions


By Vedran Vuk

With the protests in Wisconsin, I’m again reminded of the inherent logical problems with public-employee unions. Labor unions were originally created to protect the worker from the evil capitalist employer. But in the case of public unions, there is no evil capitalist employer. In fact, the employer is the government. And government employees are usually the first to defend the government as a public servant of the common good. Well, if the government is such a caring and nice entity, why is a union necessary?

This all seems very problematic, but let’s take this further. If the public employees need unions to protect themselves from the “cruel” government employer, then what protection does the rest of society need? If the government won’t treat its own employees well, how can we rely on the EPA, OSHA and the SEC to do anything for the public good? So in a way, this becomes a circular argument that indicts the public employees themselves.
 
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.~ Milton Friedman


COWARDS

CARTERESQUE


BI?

YOU AIN'T


STUPID

LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD 


THE ILLEGAL ONE'S 2011 BUDGET

Monday, February 14, 2011

FDR...The Truth Finally Comes out

Escaping the Great Depression - and Extending the Greater Depression

By Doug Casey, The Casey Report

Here at Casey Research, our view of the Great Depression of the 1930s is a little different from that of most people. In our eyes, Franklin Roosevelt wasn’t a hero, he was a villain. Nearly everything he did served to extend and deepen the economic downturn.

With the exception of supporting the 21st Amendment for the repeal of Prohibition, Roosevelt’s involvement in the economy was an unmitigated disaster. But in popular memory, that failure is obscured by U.S. success in WW2, over which Roosevelt presided.
Today, unfortunately, Obama and his minions are taking Roosevelt as a model and are straining to repeat his mistakes. Because the distortions in today’s economy are far greater than those in the 1920s and 1930s, and since the public now relies upon government far more than it did in those days, I don’t see any way around a more serious depression – the Greater Depression. It’s been going on since 2008, will get much worse, and has years left to run.

FDR himself was extraordinarily lucky. His performance looks successful because when he entered office, both the economy and the stock market were overdue for a cyclical recovery (nothing goes straight down forever). He was elected when the depression had already been going on for four years and the stock market had already fallen 90%. That fortunate timing was partly a gift from Hoover, whose large-scale interference in the economy had kept the depression going. (It’s odd how people believe Hoover was the free-marketeer and Roosevelt was the interventionist. Roosevelt really just continued and extended Hoover’s policies, but with more enthusiasm and far better PR.)

Roosevelt had more good luck (for him) with the arrival of WW2; the victories in Europe and the Pacific forever idealized every aspect of his administration. In many ways, the cult of FDR resembles that of Russia’s Joseph Stalin, who is still worshipped there as a demigod.

Although Obama seems bright enough, there’s little reason to believe he’s a student of history and no reason to believe he’s a student of economics. It’s more likely that he’s just a student of power politics, so he’s inclined to follow the conventional wisdom, which is that a combination of Roosevelt’s “bold action” in the New Deal plus World War 2 brought the country out of the Great Depression. What we hope to show here is that those notions are nonsense.

The Last Depression

How, in fact, did America recover from the Great Depression? The stock answer is: “World War 2.” But a closer look at the data reveals a different answer.

Standard mythology claims that war production – beginning in 1939 – ended our economic troubles. But the American economy didn’t truly recover until two years after the fighting stopped in 1945. In point of fact, the last depression ran from 1929 to 1947, about 18 years.

And it wasn’t a single terrible decline. As the chart above shows, GDP growth was falling in 1930, recovered from 1932 to 1936, and then began a second collapse in 1937, a down-leg due mostly to Roosevelt’s policies.

Then, in 1939, industrial production began a tremendous expansion. The unemployed were put to work either fighting or manufacturing armaments. But neither activity contributed to the general standard of living. And even if it had, the growth in production wasn’t and couldn’t have been self-sustaining, since it was in fact a growth in the squandering of resources.

The conventions for measuring GDP include government expenditures, so GDP is a poor measure of underlying economic health. The government might, for instance, hire 10 million people to dig ditches during the day, 10 million more to fill them in at night, and 5 million bureaucrats to monitor the work. That would pump up GDP and reduce unemployment, but it wouldn’t increase society’s wealth. It would decrease it.

In any event, as soon as the government’s large wartime expenditures started dropping in 1945, GDP resumed the shrinking that had begun in 1930.

The GDP growth of the war years was a prosperity mirage that dissipated when government spending stopped, unlike the wealth-creating expansion from 1932 to 1936 that had been fueled by private investment. In 1936, GDP rose $10.5 billion while government spending rose just $2.2 billion. In 1942, GDP rose $35.2 billion while government spending rose $36.1 billion. The apparent growth during the war was all government spending.

Roosevelt’s Second Act

What caused the recovery to collapse in 1936?

One element was Roosevelt’s attack on the rich. In 1935, he launched a barrage of new taxes, including a corporate income tax of 15%, a dividend tax, higher estate and gift taxes, and additional taxes on those earning more than $50,000. The top rate on individual income taxes rose to 79% in 1936, a large jump from 63% just the previous year.

On top of this, Roosevelt’s rhetoric and actions turned increasingly anti-business. Roosevelt began to strongly support organized labor – which was nice for those who had union cards, but no help for those who didn’t have the connections or skin color to get one, and great harm for the economy as a whole. His support got results. In 1935, there were only 3.8 million union members in the U.S. By 1941, there were about 10 million, approximately a quarter of the workforce.

The 1936 elections gave the country de facto one-party rule – 76 Democrats in the Senate and 331 Democrats in the House of Representatives. Each new piece of legislation berated and punished business – such as the Wagner Act, the ever higher taxing Revenue Acts, and Undistributed Profits Tax. With the government growing larger while business lacked strong representation in the halls of power, it is no wonder that private investment stalled.

Government Versus Private Investment

Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP drives the point home even more. Throughout World War 2, the private market remained in the dumps.

War spending added to the GDP numbers. And there was real progress in areas like aviation, electronics, and atomic energy – albeit at a gigantic cost. But none of this jump-started the private economy, which focuses on the products and services people really want.
You don’t need a doctorate in economics to understand this chart. The only major peak during the war marks the end of hostilities – and FDR’s death. (We’ll get to that in a moment). Note that the 1932-1936 recovery was far more significant than the often-glorified war economy.

Why didn’t FDR’s immense spending jolt the private market back to life? Remember that a wartime economy comes with strings attached; it’s not free money. Wartime regulations made operating any business almost impossible. Nearly everything required government permission. Taxes skyrocketed, leaving less capital for investment. Further, forget about competing for resources with the war industry; even if you had a good business idea, you wouldn’t be allowed to execute it.

An economy can’t prosper when markets are being overruled by command-and-control rationing. During the war, companies found it easier and more profitable to produce for government than to produce for consumers. Even companies such as Eastman Kodak, the film and camera company, began manufacturing rifle scopes and hand grenades for the military. GM stopped making cars for civilians and made military vehicles instead. Tires, gasoline, shoes, beef, sugar, coffee and much else were rationed. The standard of living in the U.S. during the war collapsed; conditions for consumers were much worse than in the ‘30s. Remember that the best definition of a depression is: A period of time when most people’s standard of living falls significantly.

Without productive private investment, recovery is impossible. Near the end of the war, as government spending subsided, private investment did return to the U.S. But that never happened in the USSR, China, or Eastern Europe, which is why they never did recover. Lack of private investment is why Britain remained something of a dump right up to the election of Thatcher. Wartime spending didn’t help the recovery, it slowed it.

During the war, a majority of businessmen – typically over 75% – believed the U.S. would retain the fascist-style economic system that it had grown into during the ‘30s and that it seemed to be cemented into by the war. With that thought so widespread, the lack of private investment is no surprise.

But with the closing of WWII, the fear of being locked into a command-and-control economy began to ease – an unintended consequence of FDR’s wiliness. FDR knew that the business world would cooperate in wartime production only if business leaders were running the show. He slowly began replacing New Dealers in his administration with the businessmen who had been squashed by New Deal policies. The new recruits worked behind the scenes in Washington to undo what the early New Dealers had accomplished. Necessity had overcome ideology.

On top of that, the Democrats were losing their grip on Congress. By 1944, they had only 56 senators and 242 representatives. In 1946, the Republicans regained both houses of Congress.

And FDR himself died, which left businessmen feeling a lot safer. The long dark night of anti-business tirades and crusades had ended. The Dow made a significant jump, and so did the daily volume on his death.

Sure, Truman was still around, but he didn’t have Roosevelt’s dangerous popularity. As a result, private investment flooded the post-war market, and a boom followed. Where did the capital to fuel the post-war boom come from? In a way, it was an accident of wartime policies.

During the war, the personal savings rate skyrocketed. There were plenty of reasons for that. For one, quality durable goods exempt from wartime rationing were difficult to find even if one wanted to buy them. Second, a big war creates uncertainty. If you’re not sure whether a husband or father will return alive, saving makes sense. The importance of savings in the 1940s is a reason for pessimism about our prospects today: unlike during WW2, today’s savings rate is still negligible. And the artificially low interest rates the government has engineered continue to discourage saving and to encourage consumption, debt, and speculation.

When the war ended, the accumulated savings supported both investing and consumer spending. It’s an experience that refutes the Keynesian notion that consumer spending stimulates the economy and saving suppresses it.

You can’t solve today’s problem of overconsumption and debt with more overconsumption and debt. The conditions that pulled America out of the Great Depression underscore that point. Once savings rates increased and made capital available for the economy, private investment soared, and shortly afterward, so did the rest of the economy.

Although history doesn’t repeat, this time it definitely rhymes. The Obama administration is trying to replay all of Roosevelt’s moves, and it’s making all of FDR’s mistakes in spades and more. The Obama bailouts of public companies are a new twist – even FDR didn’t go that far. The U.S. is already in a war economy. Will Obama ramp up the wars, thinking that what’s been done so far isn’t enough?

The bottom line is that, based on everything we know about the Great Depression, the Greater Depression, which is still in its early stages, is going to be nasty indeed.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Payne

It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. - Charles A. Beard


Some Thoughts on the 2008 Crash

By Vedran Vuk
Don’t Forget Business Cycles

Dear Reader,

At the onset of the financial crisis, many commentators predicted the end of capitalism. With free markets still around in a weakened form, the predictions were a little too bold. Sure, things are a lot worse, but the expected swing toward socialism didn’t go all the way. However, some intellectual ideas did die in the crash. Most importantly, any structure of a macroeconomic worldview has fallen apart –primarily in the media.

What do I mean? Previously, booms and busts were understood to be the phenomenon of business cycles. Despite conflicting theories from various schools of thought, economists recognized the presence of repeated business cycles. But today the business cycle seems all but forgotten in the press. Anything and everything is blamed for the crash other than business cycles. The accusations range from risk-taking on Wall Street to excessive bonuses, to regulations. Some of the favorite ones include the Community Reinvestment Act and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

And of course, these regulations had a role to play, but the Federal Reserve played the leading part. With a short look back at history, the other explanations fail to account for previous booms and busts. Did the Community Reinvestment Act and Financial Services Modernization Act cause the dot-com bubble? What about the recession in 1991? And there are many more recessions throughout history; new regulations cannot possibly explain everything.

Well, what about the subprime mortgages? Certainly those caused the crash. Yes and no. This time it was subprime mortgages, last time it was tech, and next time it’ll be something else. Ultimately, an extended period of low interest rates led to the crisis. Too much credit in the market gave entrepreneurs and companies the illusion of real prosperity. Businesses engaged in projects expecting sustained prosperity. In the case of housing, the demand seemed strong and endless. But unfortunately, it was only driven by the low cost of borrowing – not real wealth in society. When interest rates began to rise, the artificial wealth contracted. Projects that were built on the expectation of ever-increasing wealth suddenly went bust, and the entire economy experienced a massive contraction.

The same scenario has happened time and time again. Regulations, mortgages, and excessive risk-taking are just minor details in the big picture of the business cycle. Every crash has its own set of characters and problems, but they’re not the real causes of the bust.

At the beginning of the Obama administration’s term in office, the Left often blamed the crisis on “the policies of the last eight years.” This always makes me think, “Well, what policies specifically?” Even the items mentioned in the intro didn’t start in the last administration. The Financial Services Modernization Act that got rid of Glass-Steagall was passed in 1999. The CRA wasn’t exactly a Republican agenda either. Also, don’t forget that Fannie and Freddie were busy and empowered throughout the ‘90s.

Then there are the low interest rates. But this was a policy of the Federal Reserve and not the Bush administration. Also, the Democrats can’t possibly mean low rates since today’s rates are even lower. The “last eight years of policy” quote shows how ignorant the Democrats really are about business cycles. It’s essentially like saying “Some stuff from the past eight years caused this, but we’re really not sure what the actual problem is.” As a result, they blame bonuses, proprietary trading, a sudden burst of greed, or some other mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to do with the business cycle.

THE OBUMMER AND THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THERE IS NO INFLATION...






Thursday, January 27, 2011

Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.- Norm Franz

 

Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction. - Thomas Jefferson

If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nation’s credit.- SirJosiah Stamp[1880-1941]


Thursday, January 20, 2011

Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

January 20, 2011

Report Card on Obama's First Two YearsBy K.E. Campbell


Two years ago today, Barack Obama was inaugurated as president of the United States.  Are you better off today than you were two years ago?
Numbers don't lie, and here are the data on the impact he has had on the lives of Americans:

 
January 2009
Current
% chg
Source
     
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. (regular conventional)
$1.83
$3.104
69.6%
1
Selected commodities:
    
     Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
$43.48
$99.02
127.7%
2
     Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)
$38.74
$91.38
135.9%
2
     Natural gas, Henry Hub, $ per MMbtu
$4.85
$4.48
-7.6%
2
     Gold: London (per troy oz.)
$853.25
$1,369.50
60.5%
2
     Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
$3.56
$6.33
78.1%
2
     Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
$9.66
$13.75
42.3%
2
     Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob
$13.37
$35.39
164.7%
2
Consumer Price Index (for all urban consumers)
211.1
219.2
3.8%
3
Producer Price Index:  finished goods
170.3
183.0
7.5%
3
Producer Price Index:  all commodities
171.0
189.9
11.1%
3
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
7.6%
9.4%
23.7%
3
Unemployment rate, blacks
12.6%
15.8%
25.4%
3
Number of unemployed
11,616,000
14,485,000
24.7%
3
Number of fed. employees, ex. uniformed military (curr = 12/10 prelim)
2,779,000
2,840,000
2.2%
3
Real median household income (2008 vs 2009)
$50,112
$49,777
-0.7%
4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10)
31,983,716
43,200,878
35.1%
5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10)
7,526,598
9,193,838
22.2%
6
Number of long-term unemployed, in millions
2.6
6.4
146.2%
3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 vs 2009)
13.2%
14.3%
8.3%
4
People in poverty in U.S., in millions (2008 vs 2009)
39.8
43.6
9.5%
4
House price index (current = Q3 2010)
198.7
192.7
-3.0%
7
S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index: 20 city composite (curr = 10/10)
146.4
145.3
-0.8%
8
Number of properties subject of foreclosure filings, in millions
2.82
2.87
1.7%
9
DJIA (12,403 on 6/3/08, date BHO clinched Dem. nomination)
7,949
11,825
48.8%
2
NASDAQ (2,480 on 6/3/08)
1,441
2,725
89.1%
2
S&P 500 (1,378 on 6/3/08)
805
1,282
59.2%
2
Global Dow
1,356
2,153
58.8%
2
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
5
9
n/a
10
Consumer Confidence Index (curr = 12/10)
37.7
52.5
39.3%
11
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10)
29.9
23.5
-21.4%
11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date)
140
164
17.1%
12
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
89.76
82.03
-8.6%
2
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 preliminary)
1,575.1
1,865.7
18.4%
13
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 preliminary)
8,310.9
8,852.3
6.5%
13
National debt, in trillions
$10.627
$14.052
32.2%
14
     
Sources:
    
1 - U.S. Energy Information Admin.
    
2 - Wall Street Journal
    
3 - Bureau of Labor Statistics
    
4 - Census Bureau
    
5 - USDA
    
6 - U.S. Dept. of Labor
    
7 - FHFA
    
8 - Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller
    
9 - RealtyTrac
    
10 - Heritage Foundation and WSJ
    
11 - The Conference Board
    
12 - FDIC
    
13 - Federal Reserve
    
14 - U.S. Treasury

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Blog Archive

Followers

Blog Archive