tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46165429413952720832024-03-13T01:37:30.257-07:00morning coffeeA vigorous political blog, not for the fainthearted.Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.comBlogger1820125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-89156894481321745712014-12-23T20:08:00.000-08:002014-12-23T20:21:33.512-08:00Obama Grows the Economy While Shrinking the Deficit - Thats How We Do It<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The economic recovery is real, and even though it's not spectacular, it's getting there.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The good news is that the economy grew at a <a href="http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2014/gdp3q14_3rd.htm" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #2e6d9d; text-decoration: none; zoom: 1;" target="_blank">5 percent annual pace</a> in the third quarter this year, revised up from the 3.9 percent that the Commerce Department had previously estimated. It's the best quarterly growth since 2003, and, on the heels of the 4.6 percent growth in the second quarter, it's also the best six months the economy has had in that long. The even better news, though, is that this growth, unlike every other uptick the past few years, looks sustainable.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 24px;">
This isn't a blip. It's a boom.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Well, at least by the sad standards of this slow and steady recovery. The truth is that for all the hype and headlines about every little head fake, the economy has just been chugging along at the same 2 percent pace the past few years. Sometimes it's grown a little bit faster than that when companies have had to restock their inventories or sell more overseas. And sometimes it's grown a little slower than that when the opposite has happened, or when, like last winter, Arctic conditions have kept people in their homes and out of stores. But, as you can see above, growth has been remarkably consistent if we look at it over the past year, and not quarter, to smooth out these regular ups and downs.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 24px;">
The economy's 2.7 percent growth the past 12 months actually isn't the fastest of the recovery, but it is the best. You can see that if we strip out the volatile inventory and net export numbers to get something that goes by the catchy name of final sales to domestic purchasers. It shows us the economy's underlying strength in terms of consumer spending, government spending, and private investment. Basically, how much of today's growth we can expect to continue tomorrow. And that's also grown 2.7 percent the past year, a post-crisis high. Most of that's due to stronger consumers, who thanks to the combination of lower unemployment and less debt, are finally in decent enough financial shape to start spending a little bit more. That's only going to continue now that job growth is picking up, and plummeting gas prices are taking money out of the pump and putting it in people's pockets.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 24px;">
It's been awhile, but this is what a virtuous circle looks like.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l9fPg3vthD8/VJo_QAE1p6I/AAAAAAAAEDo/5MzKIa7zO2s/s1600/Morning_In_America.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l9fPg3vthD8/VJo_QAE1p6I/AAAAAAAAEDo/5MzKIa7zO2s/s1600/Morning_In_America.jpeg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Even the bad news here is kind of good news. The housing market, you see, continues to be stuck somewhere between depressed and the doldrums. Residential investment only added 0.1 percentage point to the economy's 5 percentage points of growth, and that's despite years of inactivity that's somehow left us close to a housing shortage. At some point, as un-and-underemployment decline to more normal levels, twentysomethings are going to move out of their parents' basements—<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/11/its-not-your-imagination-millennials-really-are-living-in-their-parents-basement/" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(212, 212, 212); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #2e6d9d; text-decoration: none; zoom: 1;" target="_blank">sometimes stereotypes are true</a>—and we're going to need to start building again. This recovery, in other words, still has room to grow. We might even stop hating it.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.8em; margin-bottom: 24px;">
Well, let's not jinx things.</div>
Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16542863255802738652noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-8755809381241860472014-12-23T20:04:00.001-08:002014-12-23T20:05:23.835-08:00This Is What a Successful Presidency Looks Like<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6UKYEFpAI2k/VJo7YdQaAoI/AAAAAAAAEDc/Pt8hcsCabbw/s1600/This_Is_What-a_Successful_Presidency_Looks_Like.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6UKYEFpAI2k/VJo7YdQaAoI/AAAAAAAAEDc/Pt8hcsCabbw/s320/This_Is_What-a_Successful_Presidency_Looks_Like.png" /></a>Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16542863255802738652noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-76610770094304811172014-09-20T08:24:00.000-07:002014-09-20T08:24:36.444-07:00Are you embarrassed?<div style="font-size: 15px;">
<strong>Terry, Rich and Crazy Rich....are you not embarrassed? Are you not embarrassed that you fell for a cause using the mantra of settled science when there was none....where the conclusions of this settled science were used in an attempt to force draconian changes in our society, severely limiting the possibility of future prosperity when in truth this was nothing more than another attempt at societal control...that you bought into hook, line and sinker? Are you not embarrassed that the right was exactly right....that climate change is overwhelmingly influenced by natural factors, the science was too vague and too unwell studied to make such momentous conclusions? At what point do you admit the error of you basic beliefs....that if we would just let the government control us just a little more...everything would be perfect. Socialism has failed, the economic recovery (anemic as it may have been) is mostly due to the governments invention of money and the industriousness of American industry, not the mega planning and faux compassion of Progressive governance.</strong> </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by <strong>only 1% to 2%</strong>. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature. </div>
<div class="module rich-media-inset inset-group full-width imageFormat-G" style="border-top-color: currentColor; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 0px;">
<div class="inset-tree">
<div class="inset-content inset-single-image-large view">
<div class="insettipUnit insetZoomTarget">
<div class="inset-image-box insetZoomTargetBox">
<!-- larger reference --> <span class="v-assett"> </span> </div>
<div class="targetCaption-video">
Scientists measure the sea level of the Ross Sea in Antarctica. <span class="i-credit">National Geographic/Getty Images</span> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. <strong>While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation.</strong> Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.</div>
<div class="module rich-media-inset inset-group imageFormat-DV" style="border-top-color: currentColor; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 0px;">
<div class="inset-tree">
<div class="inset-content inset-single-image-large view">
<div class="insettipUnit insetZoomTarget">
<div class="inset-image-box insetZoomTargetBox">
<div class="insettipBox">
<div class="insettip">
</div>
</div>
<!-- larger reference --> <span class="v-assett"> </span> </div>
<div class="targetCaption-video">
There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. Pictured, an estuary in Patgonia. <span class="i-credit">Gallery Stock</span> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
<strong>Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies.</strong> These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled." </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures. </div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
<em>Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of <!-- module article chiclet --> <a class="t-company" href="http://quotes.wsj.com/UK/BP.">BP</a>, <span class="article-chiclet up" data-channel-currency="GBp" data-channel-last-price="471.3" data-channel-path="" data-country-code="UK" data-ticker-code="BP." data-utc-offset-hours="1"><!-- up, down, neutral --> <span class="ticker"><a href="http://quotes.wsj.com/UK/BP.">BP.LN <span>+0.42%</span></a> </span> <!--ticker content box--> <span class="t-content"><span class="t-name"><a href="http://quotes.wsj.com/UK/BP.">BP PLC</a></span> <!--row 1--> <span class="t-sec-1"><span class="t-exch">U.K.: London</span> <span class="t-index"><span class="t-curnum up"><!-- up, down ,neutral --> <sup>GBp</sup>473.30 </span> <span class="t-direction up"><!-- up, down ,neutral --> <span>+2.00</span> <span>+0.42%</span> </span> </span> <span class="t-dates"> Sept. 19, 2014 4:43 pm </span> <span class="t-volume"> Volume (Delayed 15m) : <span>48.98M</span> </span> </span> <!--row 3--> <span class="t-sec-3"><span class="inline-list"> P/E Ratio <span>12.52</span> </span> <span class="inline-list">Market Cap<span> GBp86.58 Billion </span></span> <span class="inline-list"> Dividend Yield <span>5.04% </span> </span> <span class="inline-list">Rev. per Employee <span>GBp2,758,750</span> </span> </span> <!--row 4--> <span class="t-sec-4"><!--canvas art--> <span data-ticker="UK:BP." data-type="chart" id="ukxlonbp."></span> </span> <!--row 5--> <span class="t-sec-5"><span class="inline-list">09/19/14 <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/business-leaders-relieved-after-scotland-vote-1411117388">Business Leaders Relieved Afte...</a></span> <span class="inline-list">09/17/14 <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/as-scotland-votes-on-independence-shetland-islands-ponder-own-fate-1410967801">As Scotland Votes on Independe...</a></span> <span class="inline-list">09/15/14 <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-k-companies-donate-little-to-camps-in-scottish-independence-vote-1410798430">U.K. Companies Donate Little t...</a></span> <a href="http://quotes.wsj.com/UK/BP.?mod=articleInlineTicker">More quote details and news »</a> </span> <!-- Portfolio --> <span class="t-sec-6" style="display: none;"><span class="t-name"><a href="http://quotes.wsj.com/UK/BP.">BP.LN</a> <span>in</span> <span class="myPort"><a href="https://portfolio.wsj.com/portfolio?mod=WSJ_port_quotechicklet" target="_blank"><img src="" /> </a> </span> </span> <span class="numbers"><span class="sec-title"><span class="y-value">Your Value</span> <span class="y-change">Your Change</span> </span> <span class="n-values"><span></span> <span></span> <!-- up, down, neutral --> </span> <span class="n-values"><span></span> <span></span> <!-- up, down, neutral --> </span> <span class="shot-p">Short position</span> </span> </span> <!-- end of data tooltip contents --> </span> </span> where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.</em> </div>
<div class="module editors-picks">
<h3 class="section">
</h3>
</div>
<div class="fyre-thread-breakout-stream">
</div>
<div class="fyre-stream-menu-container">
</div>
<div class="fyre-notifier-container is-open">
<div class="fyre-notifier-base-shadow">
<div class="fyre-notifier-base">
<div class="fyre-notifier-counter blue">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="livefyre-logs">
</div>
<!-- data-module-name="resp.module.livefyre.Comment" --> <div class="zonedModule" data-module-id="11" data-module-name="dj.module.google_ads.DisplayCircAd" data-module-zone="left_bottom_circ_ad">
</div>
<!-- data-module-name="dj.module.google_ads.DisplayCircAd" --> <!--right column and side column--> <br />
<div class="column two col4wide">
<div class="zonedModule" data-module-id="3" data-module-name="dj.module.google_ads.DisplayAd" data-module-zone="top_right_google_ad">
<div class="module displayAd">
<div data-dj-adactivate="true" data-dj-adcircvalue="fullarticle" data-dj-admetazone="" data-dj-admsrcvalue="wsj_hp_righttopstories" data-dj-adpage="lifestyle_saturdayessay" data-dj-adsite="interactive.wsj.com" data-dj-adsize="[[336,280],[300,250],[336,850],[300,600],[300,1050]]" data-dj-adwidgetdivid="AD_G" data-dj-adwidgettype="googleAd" data-dj-targetnode="" id="AD_G">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/2/interactive.wsj.com/lifestyle_saturdayessay_0__container__" style="border-image: none; border: 0pt currentColor;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-71035151082271583232014-09-04T22:35:00.003-07:002014-09-04T22:35:36.300-07:00Global warming....not. Hey Al, we should all be swimming now...right? The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly <a class="icon none" href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/" target="_new">downgraded </a>the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3). <br />
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or "hiatus"), but that it doesn't after all invalidate their theories.</div>
<div style="font-size: 15px;">
Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.</div>
Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-87438697809212288732014-08-17T09:03:00.000-07:002014-08-17T09:03:02.001-07:00Ron SuskindI have been reading Ron Suskind's book Confidence Man, and it is quite an education regarding the financial crisis. However, considering the detail he uses to describe events, for example a private conversation between Elizabeth Warren and Obama, which, almost requires a complete disclosure by either party. He better be telling the truth, which I think is impossible.<br />
<br />
It is however, gasp, making me a bit more understanding of Liberal policies, he offers such non confrontational presentations of "progressive" viewpoints that they are almost palatable. <br />
<br />
It also seems to describe a very smart Obama.<br />
<br />
<br />
but....<br />
<br />
<br />
He describes the whole of the Bush presidency as a reflection of the last months, which by any objective measure not a proper description. The financial crisis, actually it was much more complex that just a financial crisis, was a long time in coming with many parties at fault, mostly people who started buying homes they could not afford and financial institutions investing in products they did not understand. Much of the Bush presidency was prosperous.<br />
<br />
Obama's signature legislation, Obamacare, is intended to make an inefficient system....better. The point made in the book was that there was no correlation between level of care and outcomes, something now which must be addressed day after day in my profession (not delivering care, just documenting care). The lack of logic and analysis is....not smart. It is going to make things worse. The most efficient system is for the consumer to pay for what they receive. Obamacare is the opposite. <br />
<br />
The cure they chose to apply? Transferring responsibility for care to yet another entity (Accountable Care Organizations) further removes the receiver of heath care from the payer of health care.<br />
<br />
Also, if outcomes (money spent for benefit), is going to be applied to Medicine, should it not be applied to other concerns, specifically Poverty?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
While I admire his change of heart regarding Gay and Lesbian issues, his missed opportunity to heal race and have us move beyond (which ultimately is going to require black people to say, apology accepted, lets move on) is really, really regretful. He could have changed the conversation to, "we are all in this together", yet chose feed the fire of oppression and entitlement.<br />
<br />
<br />
For me his lasting legacy will be the enlargement of the entitlement state.<br />
<br />
<br />
On another note, the inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth, is the graph that Gore showed with the hockey stick (and the models projected to show a flooded earth) has not happened and should have by now. After 6 years of unfettered Liberal Green, is the problem better? Crisis averted? Did the miniscule number of electric cars stop the tide and prevent disaster or did it just not happen. Climate change is mostly a poorly studied and politically biased theory. As in all things, the economic and personal desires of a free people is the best way to cure such ills (Tesla).<br />
<br />
The belief that a controlling entity can manage complex problems, poverty, race, percentage of rich/poor, environment, never ceases to amaze in its immaturity.<br />
<br />
Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-55381635228541129332014-06-28T19:12:00.002-07:002014-06-28T19:12:52.683-07:00CupThe world cup is a Liberal thing.<br />
<br />
When does game end? Kind of...sorta...ends. Well we keep track, and we add stuff on at the end and...<br />
<br />
There are no commercial breaks! Sell something already.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So America...team USA!, gets a tied in the last (sort of) 7 seconds to....Tie! And they advance?<br />
<br />
What a bunch of BS! We Conservatives need rules, and end of game time management and...your out if lose<br />
<br />
Plus<br />
<br />
Its freaking boring!Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-83342610078871127852014-04-12T21:22:00.001-07:002014-04-12T21:22:59.659-07:00Truth<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PMBWBxZSMJQ/U0oRE7JY0AI/AAAAAAAADuY/4J3_ZO4rZyI/s1600/Two_Presidents.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PMBWBxZSMJQ/U0oRE7JY0AI/AAAAAAAADuY/4J3_ZO4rZyI/s320/Two_Presidents.jpg" /></a>Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16542863255802738652noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-61177925041573821462013-11-11T17:56:00.001-08:002013-11-11T17:56:42.733-08:00Obamacare!Another example, millions and billions that there are, how central planning does not work.<br />
<br />
Feeble minds our Liberals are, they will never understand how a free people, making their own choice will always arrive at the best economic decision. <br />
<br />
Obamacare is....we will establish exchanges which work better than the free economy in allocating health care. Ignoring the pertinent point...the distortion is caused by government...but anyway...<br />
<br />
In no other endeavor is there the rational thought that removing the customer from financial decisions results in better financial decisions.<br />
<br />
<br />
So the web site does not work, a portion of the population is having their insurance cancelled due to the increased requirements of offering individual insurance. Temporary! they say... one might assume they will work the issues out (stupid that they think they can't solve this but can manage the whole)...but even giving their doubtful short term success...a long term solution...no!<br />
<br />
They, our formerly (for me) beloved government, cannot manage a business...they will FIU.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Liberals should have taken the Reps offer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-9948530133285570382013-09-12T12:21:00.000-07:002013-09-12T12:21:34.882-07:00Do we really careif PUTIN has the lead?Everyone is all bunched up in their panties, that Russia is going to lead the charge to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons. Sounds like a bunch of school boys saying only us we are the leaders, well that is exactly what Putin is saying about the arrogance of America.<br />
Yes isn't a good thing Syria finally admitted they had chemical weapons and isn't it a good thing he is going to destroy them, who cares who gets credit? Some great business books say don';t worry about who gets credit just get it done<br />
. We are still destroying our chemical weapons ( yes we have them too) and I just read this was decided during the Nixon years.<br />
So it will take a lot of time, let's see Nixon was when? Anyway it is really simple math again 6,000 dead Americans and 150,000 dead Iraq's under an invasion plan, and this plan has ZERO deaths. I say give Putin credit who cares, I know there is some mothers and fathers that will still have their children to hug and kiss goodnight.<br />
These war mongers like McCain, Cheney, and Rumsfield, are all too anxious to send our children to fight for their glory. Bush and Cheney and Shock and Awe, have taught us a lesson Senior Bush new a long time ago.<br />
Don't stick your hand in a hornet's nest. terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07127226626629333403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-43590913444213816532013-09-12T07:07:00.001-07:002013-09-12T07:07:04.999-07:00This is a smackdown...bitch....this is what happens when Liberal Doves rule the day<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?src=twr&_r=3">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?src=twr&_r=3</a><br />
<br />
If the link does not work, it is Putin's op-ed in the NYT<br />
<br />
<br />
Actually some of what he says is true, but more true is he is calling out America...Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-48998320491200707352013-09-10T21:44:00.001-07:002013-09-10T21:44:19.497-07:00If your going to use Chemical.....go big says Obama.....(who thinks.....its Bush's fault)<span style="font-size: large;">If a President runs into a crisis, those who lead address the issues but no...the man of diversity harkens to his best days...criticizing the past war...before starting his own.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Now...granted tough situation. But as Hags noted, he drew the RED LINE, no one else.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">So American policy is no use of chemical weapons...OK...good idea...so if you use them let's make you pay...great...let's go!...but wait! NO!...no...let's go with just a limited strike...huh? <em><u>Either we go to war or we don't, we don't do "limited" to satisfy the liberal base which will never agree to anything "war". </u></em> So we are going to do what Baxter and Crazy Rich? We are going to send a few bombs, mess up some stuff...probably kill some civilians...and then what?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Now the really incoherent part of our Presidents speech tonight...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">LET THE RUSSIANS HANDLE IT!</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">So, let me see if I understand our Presidents reasoning...don't use chemical weapons dammit...look I drew a RED LINE!...cuz if you do we are going to <strong>bomb</strong>...something to be determined...not you...just something... but look if you do use chemical weapons and then we find out...we are going to be really mad...I mean it, really we are...but here is the real deal...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">If you use the Chemical stuff...just once...after I drew the RED LINE!...OK, not great but...just call the Russians and offer to turn everything over and....then...OK...promise not any more...just that one time...really I mean it. Don't do it again, I will be really mad.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">And besides....IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!</span>Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-184481728246948642013-09-07T07:56:00.001-07:002013-09-07T07:56:31.391-07:00Assad has to go, says Obama, and then lifts not a finger for two years. Obama lays down a red line, and then ignores it. Shamed finally by a massive poison-gas attack, he sends Kerry to make an impassioned case for righteous and urgent retaliation — and the very next day, Obama undermines everything by declaring an indefinite timeout to seek congressional approval.Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-66930755528516605692013-09-07T07:37:00.001-07:002013-09-07T07:37:25.655-07:00<div __jsxpath_id__="570">
Each month the consultants at Sentier analyze the
numbers from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and estimate the
trend in median annual household income adjusted for inflation. On Aug. 21,
Sentier released "Household Income on the Fourth Anniversary of the Economic
Recovery: June 2009 to June 2013." The finding that grabbed headlines was that
real median household income "has fallen by 4.4 percent since the 'economic
recovery' began in June 2009." In dollar terms, median household income fell to
$52,098 from $54,478, a loss of $2,380.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U100192129145POC"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="571">
What was largely overlooked, however, is that those who
were most likely to vote for <a class="topicLink" data-ls-seen="1" href="http://topics.wsj.com/person/O/Barack-Obama/4328">Barack
Obama</a> in 2012 were members of demographic groups most likely to have
suffered the steepest income declines. Mr. Obama was re-elected with 51% of the
vote. Five demographic groups were crucial to his victory: young voters, single
women, those with only a high-school diploma or less, blacks and Hispanics. He
cleaned up with 60% of the youth vote, 67% of single women, 93% of blacks, 71%
of Hispanics, and 64% of those without a high-school diploma, according to exit
polls.</div>
Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-11620395102725681822013-09-01T17:39:00.000-07:002013-09-01T17:39:01.235-07:00A Boy in a Man's GameBoy: a male child or young man.<br />
<table class="vk_tbl vk_gy" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(135, 135, 135) !important; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+lad&sa=X&ei=QNkjUom3DJDsrAHMioCgCg&ved=0CC4Q_SowAA" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">lad</a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+schoolboy&sa=X&ei=QNkjUom3DJDsrAHMioCgCg&ved=0CC8Q_SowAA" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">schoolboy</a>, male child, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+youth&sa=X&ei=QNkjUom3DJDsrAHMioCgCg&ved=0CDAQ_SowAA" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">youth</a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+young+man&sa=X&ei=QNkjUom3DJDsrAHMioCgCg&ved=0CDEQ_SowAA" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">young man</a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+laddie&sa=X&ei=QNkjUom3DJDsrAHMioCgCg&ved=0CDIQ_SowAA" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">laddie</a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+stripling&sa=X&ei=QNkjUom3DJDsrAHMioCgCg&ved=0CDMQ_SowAA" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">stripling</a><br /><br />I start with the definition so I don't have to hear any BS about racism. <br /><br />We and our allies about about to pay the price for having an inexperienced yet egotistical amateur at the head of our government. His casual remarks at a press conference a year ago are coming back to haunt us all.<br /><br />Assad should be deposed. He is evil. But Syria is complex and the stakes are high. Read "Obama's Bread and Circuses" by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post in Real Clear Politics. It is incisive and somber. This link may work:<br /><div style="color: #222222; font-size: small; line-height: 15px;">
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/01/obamas_bread_and_circuses_119793.html<table class="vk_tbl vk_gy" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(135, 135, 135) !important;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="lr_dct_nyms_ttl" style="font-style: italic; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; vertical-align: top; white-space: nowrap;"><br /></td><td style="padding: 0px;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Obama has done real harm to us and our allies. Now that evil people recognize him for the buffoon he is, real trouble will follow.<br /><br />If you need more convincing, read "A Case Study in How Not to Conduct Foreign Policy" by Fareed Zakaria of CNN. Neither Mr. Zakaria nor CNN is know for leaning to the right. The article is also available at Real Clear Politics. Try this link:<br />http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/01/obama-team-has-mishandled-syria/?hpt=hp_t4<br />The article is also available on CNN, which may be more comfortable for those with a leftward tilt.<br /><br />Buckle your chin straps. Things are going to get worse.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />Hags</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Hagshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01725358926697799270noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-56611353752712359002013-09-01T06:59:00.001-07:002013-09-01T06:59:36.491-07:00BIG TALKERS NOW YOU HAVE TO MAN UP President Barack Obama is going to see what the most gutless two bodies in the history of organized democracy -- The U.S. House Of Representatives and the U.S. Senate -- have to say about going to "war" in Syria.<br />
And that's awesome, because it technically is their effing job to decide that stuff, a practice we've gotten away from, and which has greatly benefitted Congress, who rarely have to nut up and do anything anymore.<br />
But since society frowns on us just dropping the big one on Syria, they get to take a vote on it.<br />
Especially all those BIG TALKERS who claimed to want to take a vote, most of whom were lying when they said this. Now " can't wait to start a war " MaCain might vote no. What else from the man who chose Palin to be a heart beat away from the Presidency. Of course now they will criticize him for not being a leader.terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07127226626629333403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-7841180336016179982013-08-29T15:03:00.002-07:002013-08-29T15:03:44.412-07:00When do think skulls understand?The education proposal reflects the Obama modus operandi. First, identify an
American industry that long ago made a Faustian bargain for federal support,
such as hospitals and housing. Then describe the subsidy-dependent industry's
inevitable bloat and inefficiency in images so stark no reasonable person could
disagree. "Burdened with tens of thousands of dollars" in student debt, Mr.
Obama said at Binghamton University in New York, "they have to put off buying a
home, or starting a business, or starting a family." [Footnote: That was
<em>federal </em>student debt.] Then after getting buy-in from the mortified
industry, he imposes the solution—on his terms.<br />
<br />
First government aids an industry (Retirement, health care, education, energy) then it is over subsidized then it fails and must be rescued by those who messed it up.<br />
<br />
Time and time again.Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-69579400835192609402013-08-20T10:49:00.002-07:002013-08-20T10:50:18.182-07:00Ted Cruz and his Tea Party SupportersI have been relishing a Ted Cruz run for the White House as it will put the hypocrisy of the right wing in full relief. Cruz is a Tea Party favorite, which is to say that many/most of his supporters wanted to overturn the will of the American people as expressed in a presidential election and throw President Obama out of office for allegedly being foreign born (to an American mother and foreign father). That isn't preventing them from supporting a Canadian born candidate (to an American mother), whose father was Cuban.
<p>http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/19/ted_cruz_canada_calgary_born_texas_republican_has_dual_us_canadian_citizenship.html
<p>How many of these folks will send an apology to our president? Will Donald Trump make a definitive statement or continue to dodge the question? This isn't a minor matter. <b> The fact that some Americans wanted to President Obama out of office on this basis yet support Senator Cruz shows just how the Nazis were able to take power in Germany. Otherwise ordinary people were choosing a fascist path at the expense of democracy and why?</b>
<p>Conservative David Horowitz put it best in December of 2008, <b>"It is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution."</b>
<p>By the way, it is rather clear to me that Ted Cruz is a natural born American who is eligible to hold the presidency, just as the American born Obama is, even if he had been born in Kenya.
Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16542863255802738652noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-1163241664300606462013-08-19T06:41:00.002-07:002013-08-19T06:41:37.493-07:00Let's just say it, we would do better if we taxed Gates, Jobs, and Buffett less than everyone else<div __jsxpath_id__="487">
One of the signature themes of the Obama administration
is that the American dream is under attack due to "income disparity." The words
divide the country into haves and have-nots, suggesting a national condition
that needs to be corrected—presumably by "progressive" taxation as a mechanism
for income redistribution. The American dream has traditionally been one of
individual success that is rewarded and admired. But we are now urged to become
a zero-sum society in which those achieving the American dream are envied and
even resented.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600UXC"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="488">
The American dream is not politically affiliated. The
last time it was alive and well was the period from Ronald Reagan's second term
in office through Bill Clinton's second term in office. In those 16 years, we
enjoyed continuous low taxes, low government spending and economic prosperity.
</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600ENH"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="489">
Since 2000, the economy has staggered under the record
government spending and deficits of two presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The result of that spending spree has been lower
real wages and higher and more-persistent unemployment. The Federal Reserve has
pushed interest rates to near-zero, and, for the first time ever in the U.S.,
that Depression-era medicine has not worked—a scary situation reminiscent of
Japan's decade-plus economic demise.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600PDE"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="490">
According to the latest 2012 IRS income-tax data, the
top 1% of American taxpayers earned 20% of all income and paid 36% of all taxes.
The top 5% earned 36% of all income and paid 58% of all taxes. Will even higher
taxes help the economy? My experience in Silicon Valley tells me that high and
so-called progressive taxes are a major cause of the country's current economic
problems, not the solution. </div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600HBD"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="491">
In Silicon Valley, the rich commonly reinvest their
wealth close to home. For example, I have reinvested most of my net worth in
8.5% of the shares of my own company. </div>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="224" class="insetFullBracket" id="articleImage_1" style="visibility: hidden;">
<div __jsxpath_id__="225" class="insetFullBox">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U9021825486000VF"></a></div>
</div>
<div __jsxpath_id__="492">
Since its 1982 founding, Cypress Semiconductor has been
a net creator of jobs and wealth. We have returned $2.2 billion more to the
economy through stock buybacks, share dividends and spinouts than we have taken
out in total lifetime investments. That figure doesn't count the $4 billion in
wages the company has paid or the taxes paid on those wages. Currently, my
investment helps maintain 3,479 permanent, high-paying jobs with good
health-care benefits that are now threatened by more taxes.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U9021825486001QF"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="493">
A couple of years ago, I decided to invest in my
hometown of Oshkosh, Wis., by building a $1.2 million lakefront restaurant. That
restaurant now permanently employs 65 people at an investment of $18,000 per
job, a figure consistent with U.S. small businesses. If progressive taxation in
the name of "fairness" had taken my "extra" $1.2 million and spent it on a
government stimulus program, would 65 jobs have been created?</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600ONC"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="494">
According to recent Congressional Budget Office
statistics on the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program, each job created
has cost between $500,000 and $4 million. Thus, my $1.2 million, taxed and
respent on a government project of uncertain duration, would have created about
one job, possibly two, and not the 65 sustainable jobs that my private
investment did.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600I2E"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="495">
On the other end of the capital-intensity scale, Cypress
Semiconductor required huge investments to create jobs in its chip-manufacturing
plants. Between 1983 and 2003, those investments totaled $797 million and led to
the creation of 4,033 jobs at an investment of $198,000 per job created. Thus,
my own experience on the cost of job creation ranges from $18,000 to $198,000
per job, compared with $500,000 to $4 million per job created by the Obama
stimulus program.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600BDB"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="496">
This data squares with the broad numbers showing that
private investment is more efficient than government spending in creating jobs.
In other words: Every dollar that is taxed away from private investment and
spent by government produces fewer jobs than the jobs destroyed by the loss of
private investment.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600YF"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="497">
Yet the politics of envy, promoted most notably by
President Obama himself, continuously stokes the idea that the wealthy are not
paying their "fair share." This injured sense of unjust rewards was summed up on
a radio show I heard the other day, when a caller said of the rich: "How much
more do they need?"</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U9021825486000I"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="498">
How much more do I need? How many more jobs do you
want?</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U9021825486008UG"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="499">
Even European socialist democracies are starting to
understand that tax-and-spend policies kill jobs. For example, both Italy and
Spain have repealed their incentive programs for solar energy (along with their
"green jobs") because the countries have calculated that for every job created
by government investment in green energy, somewhere between 4.8 jobs (Italy) and
2.2 jobs (Spain) are lost because of the reciprocal cuts in private investment.
I am aware of these figures because from 2002-11 I was a major investor in and
chairman of SunPower, the world's second-largest solar-energy company, also
based in Silicon Valley.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600P1H"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="500">
Silicon Valley is today's brightest example of the
traditional American dream still at work. The investments for most startup
companies must come from individuals who can wait 10 years to get a return on
investment. Only very wealthy Americans can afford that. </div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600T4F"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="501">
Like many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, I have
reinvested in the next generation of entrepreneurs, in my case via the Sequoia
Fund and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, two venture-capital firms that
gave me a shot at the American dream. I also serve as a board member of their
portfolio companies. </div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902182548600TYC"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="502">
Does anybody really believe that moving investment
decisions from Silicon Valley to Washington by raising taxes on venture
capitalists and their investors would make Silicon Valley more productive?
Consider the Solyndra debacle: It was obvious to most of us here that the
solar-energy company had zero chance of survival. That's why the company had to
be government-funded near the end; no real investors were willing to step
up.</div>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U90218254860018D"></a>
<br />
<div __jsxpath_id__="503">
During the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama
insulted America's entrepreneurs by telling them: "You didn't build that."
Progressive taxation is just another tool used by government to take over an
ever-larger part of the U.S. economy. The horrible irony is that the government
keeps telling the very people whose jobs it destroys that if we only tax the
rich more, everything will be better</div>
Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-84697872961296559092013-08-15T08:04:00.001-07:002013-08-15T08:04:56.237-07:00How the rich companies create jobsCisco To Cut 4,000 Jobs Despite Earning $2.27 Billion In 3 Monthsterryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07127226626629333403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-81447167930491818102013-08-09T12:51:00.001-07:002013-08-09T12:51:47.048-07:00<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xmuqE__gMTc/UgVIPoBDKJI/AAAAAAAADXE/B5_uj1_SwiQ/s1600/Obama_August_2013.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xmuqE__gMTc/UgVIPoBDKJI/AAAAAAAADXE/B5_uj1_SwiQ/s320/Obama_August_2013.jpg" /></a>Baxterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16542863255802738652noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-45978568531081979552013-07-31T14:00:00.001-07:002013-07-31T14:00:05.536-07:00Obama wants to cut corporate tax and the Republican Party says NO !!!Obama wants to cut coporate tax rate from 35% to 28% and the Republican Party wants to stop this. At what point do you guys need to see the Tea Party and right wing republicans are really all about getting re elected and not about working for the general good of Americans.<br />
This corporate tax cut has been the cornerstone of your party (too high a corporate tax) and you still want to say no.<br />
I'm just sick of this anti Obama crap, get over it compromise is what democracy is all about. You don't get your way, thats why you work together.<br />
The Republican party will be in the dustbin of history if you don't get some level headed people at the leadership. <br />
My man Riegel says the Republicans will never win another election, I'm starting to believe him!terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07127226626629333403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-79098858361998994182013-07-28T07:31:00.001-07:002013-07-28T07:31:16.413-07:00Warren Buffett's Son Peter. The Charitable Industrial Complex<h6 class="kicker">
Op-Ed Contributor</h6>
<h1 class="articleHeadline" itemprop="headline">
<nyt_headline type=" " version="1.0">The Charitable-Industrial Complex</nyt_headline></h1>
<nyt_byline><h6 class="byline">
By <span itemprop="author creator" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><span itemprop="name">PETER BUFFETT</span></span></h6>
</nyt_byline><h6 class="dateline">
Published: July 26, 2013 </h6>
<div class="shareTools shareToolsThemeClassic articleShareToolsTop shareToolsInstance" data-description="As more lives are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.”" data-shares="facebook,twitter,google,save,email,showall|Share,print,singlepage,reprints,ad" data-title="The Charitable-Industrial Complex" data-url="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html">
<div class="shareToolsBox">
<ul class="shareToolsList">
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemFacebook firstItem" data-share="facebook"><span>Facebook</span></li>
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemTwitter" data-share="twitter"><span>Twitter</span></li>
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemGoogle" data-share="google"><span>Google+</span></li>
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemSave" data-share="save"><span>Save</span></li>
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemEmail" data-share="email"><span>E-mail</span></li>
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemShowall" data-share="showall"><span>Share</span></li>
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemPrint" data-share="print"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html?pagewanted=print">Print</a></li>
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemReprints" data-share="reprints"><span>Reprints</span></li>
<li class="shareToolsItem shareToolsItemAd Frame4A lastItem" data-share="ad" id="Frame4A"><!-- ADXINFO classification="Business_SF_Markets_Module_Tile" campaign="FSL2013_ArticleTools_120x60_1849320b" priority="8000" width="120" height="60" --><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day&pos=Frame4A&sn2=72270860/53be7632&sn1=47e4bafc/64b5e04&camp=FSL2013_ArticleTools_120x60_1849320b&ad=12YAS_NYT120x60&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2F12yearsaslave" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="60" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/adx/images/ADS/34/39/ad.343915/12YAS_NYT120x60.gif" width="120" /></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBody">
<span itemid="http://www.nytimes.com" itemprop="copyrightHolder provider sourceOrganization" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization"></span><nyt_text><nyt_correction_top></nyt_correction_top><div itemprop="articleBody">
I HAD spent much of my life writing music for commercials, film and television and knew little about the world of philanthropy as practiced by the very wealthy until what I call the big bang happened in 2006. That year, my father, Warren Buffett, made good on his commitment to give nearly all of his accumulated wealth back to society. In addition to making several large donations, he added generously to the three foundations that my parents had created years earlier, one for each of their children to run. </div>
</nyt_text></div>
<div class="articleInline runaroundLeft">
<!--forceinline--><div class="inlineImage module">
<div class="image">
<div class="icon enlargeThis">
<a href="javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/07/27/opinion/0727OPEDopen.html','0727OPEDopen_html','width=395,height=630,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')">Enlarge This Image</a></div>
<a href="javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/07/27/opinion/0727OPEDopen.html','0727OPEDopen_html','width=395,height=630,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')"><span itemid="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/07/27/opinion/0727OPEDopen/0727OPEDopen-articleInline.jpg" itemprop="associatedMedia" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject"><img alt="" height="292" itemprop="url" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/07/27/opinion/0727OPEDopen/0727OPEDopen-articleInline.jpg" width="190" /></span></a></div>
<h6 class="credit">
Open, N.Y.</h6>
<br /></div>
<div class="columnGroup doubleRule">
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="articleInline runaroundLeft first">
<h3 class="sectionHeader">
Audio</h3>
<div class="summary">
Listen to a related song written by Peter Buffett.</div>
<style type="text/css">.refer .inlinePlayer .refer{font-size:1em}</style>
<div class="inlinePlayer box">
<div class="refer">
<img height="10" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/multimedia/icons/audio_icon.gif" width="13" /> 'Already Flown' by Peter Buffett</div>
<div id="p299130" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 100%;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleInline runaroundLeft">
<div class="articleInline runaroundLeft">
</div>
<div class="doubleRule">
<div class="story">
<div class="runaroundRight">
<img alt="Opinion Twitter Logo." height="75" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/opinion/Twitter_Avatars/NYT_Twitter_opinion.png" width="75" /></div>
<h4>
Connect With Us on Twitter</h4>
<div class="summary">
For Op-Ed, follow <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/nytopinion">@nytopinion</a> and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/andyrNYT">@andyrNYT</a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBody">
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Early on in our philanthropic journey, my wife and I became aware of something I started to call Philanthropic Colonialism. I noticed that a donor had the urge to “save the day” in some fashion. People (including me) who had very little knowledge of a particular place would think that they could solve a local problem. Whether it involved farming methods, education practices, job training or business development, over and over I would hear people discuss transplanting what worked in one setting directly into another with little regard for culture, geography or societal norms. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Often the results of our decisions had unintended consequences; distributing condoms to stop the spread of AIDS in a brothel area ended up creating a higher price for unprotected sex. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
But now I think something even more damaging is going on. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Because of who my father is, I’ve been able to occupy some seats I never expected to sit in. Inside any important philanthropy meeting, you witness heads of state meeting with investment managers and corporate leaders. All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left. There are plenty of statistics that tell us that inequality is continually rising. At the same time, according to the Urban Institute, the nonprofit sector has been steadily growing. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits increased 25 percent. Their growth rate now exceeds that of both the business and government sectors. It’s a massive business, with approximately <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/100831257">$316 billion</a> given away in 2012 in the United States alone and more than 9.4 million employed. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Philanthropy has become the “it” vehicle to level the playing field and has generated a growing number of gatherings, workshops and affinity groups. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place. The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep the pot from boiling over. Nearly every time someone feels better by doing good, on the other side of the world (or street), someone else is further locked into a system that will not allow the true flourishing of his or her nature or the opportunity to live a joyful and fulfilled life. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
And with more business-minded folks getting into the act, business principles are trumpeted as an important element to add to the philanthropic sector. I now hear people ask, “what’s the R.O.I.?” when it comes to alleviating human suffering, as if return on investment were the only measure of success. Microlending and financial literacy (now I’m going to upset people who are wonderful folks and a few dear friends) — what is this really about? People will certainly learn how to integrate into our system of debt and repayment with interest. People will rise above making $2 a day to enter our world of goods and services so they can buy more. But doesn’t all this just feed the beast? </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
I’m really not calling for an end to capitalism; I’m calling for humanism. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Often I hear people say, “if only they had what we have” (clean water, access to health products and free markets, better education, safer living conditions). Yes, these are all important. But no “charitable” (I hate that word) intervention can solve any of these issues. It can only kick the can down the road. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
My wife and I know we don’t have the answers, but we do know how to listen. As we learn, we will continue to support conditions for systemic change. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
It’s time for a new operating system. Not a 2.0 or a 3.0, but something built from the ground up. New code. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
What we have is a crisis of imagination. Albert Einstein said that you cannot solve a problem with the same mind-set that created it. Foundation dollars should be the best “risk capital” out there. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
There are people working hard at showing examples of other ways to live in a functioning society that truly creates greater prosperity for all (and I don’t mean more people getting to have more stuff). </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Money should be spent trying out concepts that shatter current structures and systems that have turned much of the world into one vast market. Is progress really Wi-Fi on every street corner? No. It’s when no 13-year-old girl on the planet gets sold for sex. But as long as most folks are patting themselves on the back for charitable acts, we’ve got a perpetual poverty machine. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
It’s an old story; we really need a new one. </div>
</div>
terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07127226626629333403noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-25768758140384018852013-07-27T06:45:00.001-07:002013-07-27T06:45:57.074-07:00How The Republican Party works when It Doesn't get it's wayDefunding Obamacare entirely, it is not news—it is par for the course for the take-no-prisoners extremist senator from Utah. When the Senate Republicans' No. 2 and No. 3 leaders, John Cornyn and John Thune, sign on to the blackmail plan, it is news—of the most depressing variety.<br />
I am not the only one who has written about House and Senate Republicans' monomaniacal focus on sabotaging the implementation of Obamacare—Greg Sargent, Steve Benen, Jon Chait, Jon Bernstein, Ezra Klein, and many others have written powerful pieces. But it is now spinning out of control.<br />
It is important to emphasize that this set of moves is simply unprecedented. The clear comparison is the Medicare prescription drug plan. When it passed Congress in 2003, Democrats had many reasons to be furious. The initial partnership between President Bush and Sen. Edward Kennedy had resulted in an admirably bipartisan bill—it passed the Senate with 74 votes. Republicans then pulled a bait and switch, taking out all of the provisions that Kennedy had put in to bring along Senate Democrats, jamming the resulting bill through the House in a three-hour late-night vote marathon that blatantly violated House rules and included something close to outright bribery on the House floor, and then passing the bill through the Senate with just 54 votes—while along the way excluding the duly elected conferees, Tom Daschle (the Democratic leader!) and Jay Rockefeller, from the conference committee deliberations.<br />
The implementation of that bill was a huge challenge, and had many rocky moments. It required educating millions of seniors, most not computer-literate, about the often complicated choices they had to create or change their prescription coverage. Imagine if Democrats had gone all out to block or disrupt the implementation—using filibusters to deny funding, sending threatening letters to companies or outside interests who mobilized to educate Medicare recipients, putting on major campaigns to convince seniors that this was a plot to deny them Medicare, comparing it to the ill-fated Medicare reform plan that passed in 1989 and, after a revolt by seniors, was repealed the next year.<br />
Almost certainly, Democrats could have tarnished one of George W. Bush's signature achievements, causing Republicans major heartburn in the 2004 presidential and congressional elections—and in the process hurting millions of Medicare recipients and their families. Instead, Democrats worked with Republicans, and with Mark McClellan, the Bush administration official in charge of implementation, to smooth out the process and make it work—and it has been a smashing success.<br />
Contrast that with Obamacare. For three years, Republicans in the Senate refused to confirm anybody to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the post that McClellan had held in 2003-04—in order to damage the possibility of a smooth rollout of the health reform plan. Guerrilla efforts to cut off funding, dozens of votes to repeal, abusive comments by leaders, attempts to discourage states from participating in Medicaid expansion or crafting exchanges, threatening letters to associations that might publicize the availability of insurance on exchanges, and now a new set of threats—to have a government shutdown, or to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, unless the president agrees to stop all funding for implementation of the plan.<br />
I remember being shocked when some congressional Democrats appeared to be rooting for the surge in troops in Iraq to fail—which would mean more casualties among Americans and Iraqis, but a huge embarrassment for Bush, and vindication of their skepticism. But of course they did not try to sabotage the surge by disrupting funding or interfering in the negotiations in Iraq with competing Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish power centers. To do so would have been close to treasonous.<br />
<strong>What is going on now to sabotage Obamacare is not treasonous—just sharply beneath any reasonable standards of elected officials with the fiduciary responsibility of governing. A good example is the letter Senate Republican Leaders Mitch McConnell and Cornyn sent to the NFL, demanding that it not cooperate with the Obama administration in a public-education campaign to tell their fans about what benefits would be available to them and how the plan would work—a letter that clearly implied deleterious consequences if the league went ahead anyhow. McConnell and Cornyn got their desired result. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell quickly capitulated</strong>. (When I came to Washington in 1969-70, one of my great pleasures was meeting and getting to know Charles Goodell, the courageous Republican senator from New York who took on his own president on Vietnam and was quietly courageous on many other controversial issues. Roger Goodell is his son—although you would not know it from this craven action.)<br />
When a law is enacted, representatives who opposed it have some choices (which are not mutually exclusive). They can try to repeal it, which is perfectly acceptable—unless it becomes an effort at grandstanding so overdone that it detracts from other basic responsibilities of governing. They can try to amend it to make it work better—not just perfectly acceptable but desirable, if the goal is to improve a cumbersome law to work better for the betterment of the society and its people. They can strive to make sure that the law does the most for Americans it is intended to serve, including their own constituents, while doing the least damage to the society and the economy. Or they can step aside and leave the burden of implementation to those who supported the law and got it enacted in the first place.<br />
But to do everything possible to undercut and destroy its implementation—which in this case means finding ways to deny coverage to many who lack any health insurance; to keep millions who might be able to get better and cheaper coverage in the dark about their new options; to create disruption for the health providers who are trying to implement the law, including insurers, hospitals, and physicians; to threaten the even greater disruption via a government shutdown or breach of the debt limit in order to blackmail the president into abandoning the law; and to hope to benefit politically from all the resulting turmoil—is simply unacceptable, even contemptible. One might expect this kind of behavior from a few grenade-throwing firebrands. That the effort is spearheaded by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate—even if Speaker John Boehner is motivated by fear of his caucus, and McConnell and Cornyn by fear of Kentucky and Texas Republican activists—takes one's breath away.terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07127226626629333403noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-46326893878237832872013-07-26T07:54:00.000-07:002013-07-26T07:54:16.771-07:00If there’s an iron rule in economics, it is <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-is-health-cares-slowdown-for-real/2013/05/19/15bb0270-c0a9-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html">Stein’s Law</a> (named after Herb, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers): “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”<br />
Detroit, for example, can no longer go on borrowing, spending, raising taxes and dangerously cutting such essential services as street lighting and police protection. So it stops. <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/detroit-files-largest-municipal-bankruptcy-in-us-history/2013/07/18/a8db3f0e-efe6-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html">It goes bust.</a> <br />
Cause of death? Corruption, both legal and illegal, plus a classic case of reactionary liberalism in which the governing Democrats — there’s been <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit">no Republican mayor</a> in half a century — simply refused to adapt to the straitened economic circumstances that followed the post-World War II auto boom.<br />
<br />
But Detroit is an object lesson not just for other cities. Not even the almighty federal government is immune to Stein’s Law. Reactionary liberalism simply cannot countenance serious reform of the iconic social welfare programs of the 20th century. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are pledged to their inviolability. President Obama will occasionally admit that, for example, <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president">Medicare cannot go on as is</a>, but then reverts to <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-medicare-plan-obamas-use-of-out-of-date-data/2012/07/23/gJQAZ2yE5W_blog.html">crude demagoguery</a> when Republicans propose a structural reform, such as premium support for Medicare or something as obvious as raising the retirement age to match increasing longevityJim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4616542941395272083.post-37558167749719549952013-07-25T08:18:00.001-07:002013-07-25T08:18:08.320-07:00The Social Justice President!The President summed up his economic priorities "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad
economics," . "When middle-class
families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth
concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the
economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it
undermines the very essence of this country." "That's why reversing these trends must be
Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">Ummmm....OK....So....you have had 5 years....how is it going Mr. President?</span><br />
<br />
Mr. Obama has focused his
policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth.<strong> The predictable
result has been more inequality and less growth.</strong> The rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising
stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. N<strong>o President has done worse
by the middle class in modern times.</strong><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902154949124MB"></a>
<br />
By now the lackluster growth figures are well known. The recovery that began
four years ago has been one of the weakest on record, averaging a little more
than 2%. And it has not gained speed. Growth in the fourth quarter of 2012 was
0.4%. It rose to a still anemic 1.8% in the first quarter but most economists
are predicting even slower growth in the second quarter. <strong>What has never arrived is
the 3%-4% growth spurt during typical expansions.</strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">One ponders.....does our President know how badly he has done? Did he not know what a historic opportunity the great recession presented (as recessions do) to promote economic growth then claim the credit? Wait!....does he really believe in this Social justice crap!?</span><br />
<br />
The core problem has been Mr. Obama's focus on spreading the wealth rather
than creating it. ObamaCare will soon hook more Americans on government
subsidies, but its mandates and taxes have hurt job creation, especially at
small businesses. Mr. Obama's record tax increases have grabbed a bigger chunk
of affluent incomes, but they created uncertainty for business throughout 2012
and have dampened growth so far this year. <br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902154949124VFE"></a>
<br />
<strong>The food stamp and disability rolls have exploded,</strong> which reduces inequality
but also reduces the incentive to work and rise on the economic ladder. This has
contributed to a plunge in the share of Americans who are working—the labor
participation rate—to 63.5% in June from 65.7% in June 2009. And don't forget
the Fed's extraordinary monetary policy, which has done well by the rich who
have assets but left the thrifty middle class and retirees earning pennies on
their savings.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">Its almost like...he is trying to do this.....with the support of misbegotten souls like Baxter and Terry, he has intentionally trashed the economy....<strong>with Justice for All</strong>!...to form a permanent class of perma-liberal voters!</span><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="U902154949124RSH"></a>
<br />
Mr. Obama would have done far better by the poor, the middle class and the
wealthy if he had focused on growing the economy first. The difference between
the Obama 2% recovery and the Reagan-Clinton 3%-4% growth rates is rising
incomes for nearly everybody. Jim G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00142119429985458217noreply@blogger.com4