Archive for September, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 47, September 28, 2011: Segment 2: Republican Presidential Debate, September 22, 2011–Videos

Posted on September 27, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Coal, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Monetary Policy, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Resources, Security, Socials Security, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 47:September 28, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 46:September 21, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-47

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Full GOP presidential debate in Orlando, FL — September 22, 2011 (FOX News)

Republican Presidential Debate pt.1

Republican Presidential Debate pt.2

Republican Presidential Debate pt.3

Republican Presidential Debate pt.4

Republican Presidential Debate pt.5

Republican Presidential Debate pt.6

Republican Presidential Debate pt.7

Republican Presidential Debate pt.8

Republican Presidential Debate pt.9

Republican Presidential Debate pt.10

Background Articles and Videos

Perry: ‘Heartless’ Poor Word Choice In Immigration Debate

Glenn Beck: Republicans Trying to Eat the Tea Party

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 47: Segment 0: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

Pronk Pops Show 47: Segment 1: Herman Cain Wins Florida Straw Poll: The Cain Mutiny–Videos

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 47: Segment 1: Herman Cain Wins Florida Straw Poll: The Cain Mutiny–Videos

Posted on September 27, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Radio, Rifles, Socials Security, Tax Policy, Videos, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 47:September 28, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 46:September 21, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-47

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: Herman Cain Wins Florida Straw Poll: The Cain Mutiny–Videos

Herman Cain addressing the Presidency 5 Republican Party of Florida meeting in Orlando. Credit AP


Florida “Presidency 5” Straw Poll Results Announced: Herman Cain Wins Big

Herman Cain Wins Florida Straw Poll!

Ron Paul Supporter on Herman Cain’s P5 Victory

Who Is Herman Cain?

Herman Cain’s Stunning Victory in FL Straw Poll While Rick Perry in Deep Trouble

Herman Cain on Taxes

Rick Perry Booed Again for $100K Illegal Immigrant Tuition Plan

Rick Perry AGREES with Obama: Open Borders for America!

msnbc/cnn – mitt romney vs. rick perry on securing the border

Herman Cain “We’re Not Gonna Get A Different Outcome Until We Change The Leadership”

Ron Paul Florida CPAC Speech

Gov. Mitt Romney Hits Obama and Perry in Florida CPAC Speech – 9/23/11

Gov. Rick Perry Speech at Florida CPAC: GOP Needs Candidate with Best Record, Vision

Newt Gingrich Speech at “Presidency 5” Florida Straw Poll: Rubio would be a Great VP

Rick Santorum on his success in running against all odds

Herman Cain, Republican candidate for president, won the Florida straw poll with 37 percent of the 2,657 delegates votes cast. Cain’s total votes were more than double the combined votes cast for Texas Gov. Rick Perry with 15 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 14 percent.

Cain also beat the rest of the crowded Republican field including former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorium with 10 percent, Texas Congressman Ron Paul with 10 percent, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich with 8 percent, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman with 2 percent, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann with 1 percent.

While many Republicans came to the Republican President 5 event in Orlando to vote for either Perry and Romney, the two leading Republican candidates according to national polls, Cain won as a direct result of his performance in the Sept. 22 debate and his inspiring speech to the Republican delegates attending the Faith and Freedom Coalition and Conservative Political Action Conference meetings culminating in the Sept. 24 straw poll.

During the debates, Cain’s signature policy recommendation has been his 999 tax reform proposal. It would replace the existing complex federal income taxation system and payroll taxes with a 9 percent business flat tax, a 9 percent individual flat tax and a 9 percent national sales tax. Until the Republican debates, Cain had been a highly visible advocate of the FairTax bill. Prior to supporting the FairTax, Cain had supported a flat tax advocated by 1996 presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

The FairTax replaces all federal income and payroll taxes with a progressive national retail sales consumption tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment, according to Americans for Fair Taxation.

Apparently his political advisers convinced him not to make defense of the FairTax part of his political campaign for president. In my opinion, Cain made a serious mistake when he walked away from the FairTax and its supporters and instead went with a hybrid flat tax and sales tax. Either a flat tax or the FairTax would be better than Cain’s 999 hybrid flat and sales taxes.

Cain’s experience includes being the chief executive officer of Godfather’s Pizza, CEO of the National Restaurant Association, chairman and member of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, syndicated newspaper columnist distributed by North Star Writers Group, Fox Business commenter and talk radio show host of the “Herman Cain Show,” in Atlanta.

Despite efforts by the national media to focus attention on the leading Republican establishment candidates, Perry and Romney, there is clearly no decisive front-runner among the Republican and Tea Party base.

On Sept. 18, Ron Paul won the California Republican straw poll winning 44 percent of the 833 votes cast. Perry was second with 29 percent, Romney third with 8 percent, and Bachmann fourth with 7 percent. The remaining Republican candidates including Cain received 2 percent or less of the votes casts. Paul had made several speeches before the Republican Party state convention prior to the vote.

Perry’s popularity is rapidly declining due to his poor performance in three debates. The Texas governor’s position on illegal immigration is not resonating with the Republican base. In particular Perry’s support for giving children of illegal immigrants reduced tuition to state colleges and universities does not set well with the American people.

The Republican base simply wants the immigration laws enforced and no amnesty, education, medical and welfare spending for illegal aliens. Such expenditures are rewarding illegal activity at the expense of American citizens. Perry was booed when he said in the last debate, “If you say that we should not educate children who have come into the state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there, by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.” This is a classic Democratic Party emotional response to the illegal immigration issue that is costing the American people hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of jobs. Perry’s major Achilles’ heel is the illegal immigration issue.

The only polls that really count are the ones on the primary and caucus election dates.

Here is a partial list of the early primary and caucus dates for 2012:

Jan. 31: Florida (Likely to change)

Feb. 6: Iowa caucuses

Feb. 7: Minnesota GOP caucuses, Missouri, New Jersey

Feb. 14: New Hampshire

Feb. 18: Nevada caucuses

Feb. 21: Wisconsin

Feb. 28: South Carolina, Arizona, Michigan

March 6 (Super Tuesday): Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Colorado caucuses, Idaho GOP caucuses, Minnesota Democratic caucuses

If you want to vote in the Texas Republican or Democratic primaries you must be registered to vote as a Republican or Democrat at least 30 days before the March 6 primary date.

By March 7, 2012, the American people will have narrowed the Republican field down to two or three candidates.

In my opinion, the three remaining candidates will be Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Herman Cain. The other candidates will have dropped out by then because they do not have the money, organization or message to pursue a national campaign.

The winner in 1979 of the first Republican Party of Florida straw poll was Ronald Reagan. He was running against the Republican establishment candidates George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole and Howard Baker and four other GOP candidates.

Background Articles and Videos

The FairTax Versus the Obama ‘Jobs Plan’

Rob Woodall Floor Speech: The FairTax will bring jobs back to America.

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 47: Segment 0: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

Pronk Pops Show 47, September 28, 2011: Segment 2: Republican Presidential Debate, September 22, 2011–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Pronk Pops Show 47: Segment 0: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

Posted on September 27, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Rifles, Security, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 47:September 28, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 46:September 21, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-47

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

“It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”

~George Washington

Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect

Ron Paul: The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two super powers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crises of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig Von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no “beating their swords into plowshares,” even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole super power. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of “making the world safe for democracy” by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been “exceptional” but in an opposite manner from the neo-con driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned—if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

  • Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
  • Offering friendship with all who seek it.
  • Participating in trade with all who are willing.
  • Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.

Ron Paul: Mainstream America Supports My Foreign Policy

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

Noam Chomsky Agrees with Ron Paul … on Foreign Policy

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and Immigration

Shultz on Nukes — Then & Now

“…George Shultz, writing with Henry Kissinger and others in the Wall Street Journal late last year, asserted that nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War. But reliance on nuclear weapons for [the purpose of deterrence] is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective,The world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. What made nuclear weapons acceptable then, and so unacceptable today? In answering these questions Shultz addresses the difficult challenges the United States faces as it seeks to curb the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, and the threat represented by non-nation state actors: the nightmare scenario of a nuclear suitcase bomb detonating in a major American city. …”


The Original American Foreign Policy

By Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 47: Segment 1: Herman Cain Wins Florida Straw Poll: The Cain Mutiny–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 47, September 28, 2011: Segment 2: Republican Presidential Debate, September 22, 2011–Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Russell Kirk–The Traditional Conservative That Predicted 9/11–Videos

Chalmers Johnson–Blowback-The Sorrows of Empire–Nemesis–Dismantling the Empire–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Conservative vs. Neoconservative–Videos

Neo-Conned!–Congressman Ron Paul–Videos

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Marco Rubio Is A Neoconservative–For That Reason Alone The American People Will Never Elect Him President–Rush Is Wrong–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Mark Levin’s Nemesis–Jack Hunter–The Southern Avenger–Ron Paul–Libertarians vs. Neoconservatives–Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

The John Birch Society-Overview of America-Videos

Robert Welch, The John Birch Society And Ron Paul –Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 46, September 21, 2011: Segment 2: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

Posted on September 20, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Coal, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Regulation, Resources, Security, Tax Policy, Technology, Videos, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 46:September 21, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-46

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 2: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

“It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”

~George Washington

Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect

Ron Paul: The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two super powers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crises of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig Von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no “beating their swords into plowshares,” even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole super power. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of “making the world safe for democracy” by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been “exceptional” but in an opposite manner from the neo-con driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned—if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

  • Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
  • Offering friendship with all who seek it.
  • Participating in trade with all who are willing.
  • Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.

Ron Paul: Mainstream America Supports My Foreign Policy

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

Noam Chomsky Agrees with Ron Paul … on Foreign Policy

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy and Immigration

Shultz on Nukes — Then & Now

“…George Shultz, writing with Henry Kissinger and others in the Wall Street Journal late last year, asserted that nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War. But reliance on nuclear weapons for [the purpose of deterrence] is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective,The world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. What made nuclear weapons acceptable then, and so unacceptable today? In answering these questions Shultz addresses the difficult challenges the United States faces as it seeks to curb the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, and the threat represented by non-nation state actors: the nightmare scenario of a nuclear suitcase bomb detonating in a major American city. …”


The Original American Foreign Policy

By Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 46, September 21, 2011: Segment 0: Obama’s Solargate: Solyndra Stimulus Spending Cost Taxpayers An Estimated $535 Million–Crony Capitalism Campaign Contribution Corruption–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 46, September 21, 2011: Segment 1: Eat The Rich!–Vote Obama In 2012 For More Spending, More Taxes, More Deficits, More Debt, More Unemployment, More Recession–No Hope–No Change–No Deal!–Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Russell Kirk–The Traditional Conservative That Predicted 9/11–Videos

Chalmers Johnson–Blowback-The Sorrows of Empire–Nemesis–Dismantling the Empire–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Conservative vs. Neoconservative–Videos

Neo-Conned!–Congressman Ron Paul–Videos

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Marco Rubio Is A Neoconservative–For That Reason Alone The American People Will Never Elect Him President–Rush Is Wrong–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Mark Levin’s Nemesis–Jack Hunter–The Southern Avenger–Ron Paul–Libertarians vs. Neoconservatives–Videos

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy–Videos

Ron Paul On The Neoconservative Threat To The Constitution, Freedom, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

C. Bradley Thompson–Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea–Videos

Is Bill Bennett A Classical Liberal, a.k.a. A Libertarian or A Neoconservative? His Listeners Would Like To Know.

The John Birch Society-Overview of America-Videos

Robert Welch, The John Birch Society And Ron Paul –Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Pronk Pops Show 46, September 21, 2011: Segment 1: Eat The Rich!–Vote Obama In 2012 For More Spending, More Taxes, More Deficits, More Debt, More Unemployment, More Recession–No Hope–No Change–No Deal!–Videos

Posted on September 20, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Legal Immigration, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector Unions, Public Sector Unions, Security, Socials Security, Success, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 46:September 21, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-46

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: Eat The Rich!–Vote Obama In 2012 For More Spending, More Taxes, More Deficits, More Debt, More Unemployment, More Recession–No Hope–No Change–No Deal!–Videos

EAT THE RICH!

Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH

 

President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary

Obama the Socialist wants to spread YOUR money around

Obama – Taxes, Capital Gains

 

President Barack Obama, September 19, 2011

“…So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive.  But any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close our deficit.  That has to be part of the formula.  And any reform should follow another simple principle:  Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires.  That’s pretty straightforward.  It’s hard to argue against that.  Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  There is no justification for it.

It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.  Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out.  They should have to defend that unfairness — explain why somebody who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that — paying a higher rate.  They ought to have to answer for it.  And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution. …”

2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets

Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:

2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets

Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Joint Married Filing Separate Head of Household
10% Up to $8,500 Up to $17,000 Up to $8,500 Up to $12,150
15% $8,501 – $34,500 $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500 $12,151 – $46,250
25% $34,501 – $83,600 $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $69,675 $46,251 – $119,400
28% $83,601 – $174,400 $139,351 – $212,300 $69,676 – $106,150 $119,401 – $193,350
33% $174,401 – $379,150 $212,301 – $379,150 $106,151 – $189,575 $193,351 – $379,150
35% Over $379,150 Over $379,150 Over $189,575 Over $379,150

In addition to the tax brackets above, you may owe tax under the alternative minimum tax. You can review the 2011 AMT exemption to see if it will apply to you.

Proposed 2012 Tax Rates & Tax Brackets

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Joint Head of Household
10% Up to $8,600 Up to $17,200 Up to $12,250
15% $8,601 – $34,900 $17,201 – $69,800 $12,251 – $46,750
25% $34,901 – $84,500 $69,801 – $140,850 $46,751 – $120,700
28% $84,501 – $195,950 $140,851 – $237,700 $120,701 – $216,800
36% $195,951 – $383,350 $237,701 – $383,350 $216,801 – $383,350
39.6% Over $383,350 Over $383,350 Over $383,350

Married Filing Separate was not included in the release. I’ll update the 2012 federal tax tables for all filing statuses as soon as the information is available.

2012 Tax Rates vs 2011 Tax Rates

Want to compare the proposed 2012 tax brackets to the current year to see the changes?

The biggest changes in the proposal are expanding the 28% bracket and replacing the 33% and 35% brackets with 36% and 39.6% brackets.

http://www.mydollarplan.com/tax-brackets/

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

“…This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1
percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes
and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think
tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15
percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between
$40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in
federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7
percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income
taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or
more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes,
according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal
income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3
percent.

Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and
individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The
top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax
rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above
$379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because
the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and
credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on
revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low-
and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most,
however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. …”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b

Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)

Number of Returns with Positive AGI AGI ($ millions) Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100% 12.24%
Top 1% 1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 20.00% 38.02% $380,354 23.27%
1-5% 5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70% 17.21%
Top 5% 6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 34.73% 58.72% $159,619 20.70%
5-10% 6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22% 12.44%
Top 10% 13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94% $113,799 18.71%
10-25% 20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40% 9.29%
Top 25% 34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34% $67,280 15.68%
25-50% 34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96% 6.75%
Top 50% 69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30% >$33,048 13.65%
Bottom 50% 69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70% <$33,048 2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 100% 19.05% 36.84% 12.44% 49.28% 23.74% 73.02% 19.93% 92.95% 7.05%
1981 100% 17.58% 35.06% 12.90% 47.96% 24.33% 72.29% 20.26% 92.55% 7.45%
1982 100% 19.03% 36.13% 12.45% 48.59% 23.91% 72.50% 20.15% 92.65% 7.35%
1983 100% 20.32% 37.26% 12.44% 49.71% 23.39% 73.10% 19.73% 92.83% 7.17%
1984 100% 21.12% 37.98% 12.58% 50.56% 22.92% 73.49% 19.16% 92.65% 7.35%
1985 100% 21.81% 38.78% 12.67% 51.46% 22.60% 74.06% 18.77% 92.83% 7.17%
1986 100% 25.75% 42.57% 12.12% 54.69% 21.33% 76.02% 17.52% 93.54% 6.46%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 100% 24.81% 43.26% 12.35% 55.61% 21.31% 76.92% 17.02% 93.93% 6.07%
1988 100% 27.58% 45.62% 11.66% 57.28% 20.57% 77.84% 16.44% 94.28% 5.72%
1989 100% 25.24% 43.94% 11.85% 55.78% 21.44% 77.22% 16.94% 94.17% 5.83%
1990 100% 25.13% 43.64% 11.73% 55.36% 21.66% 77.02% 17.16% 94.19% 5.81%
1991 100% 24.82% 43.38% 12.45% 55.82% 21.46% 77.29% 17.23% 94.52% 5.48%
1992 100% 27.54% 45.88% 12.12% 58.01% 20.47% 78.48% 16.46% 94.94% 5.06%
1993 100% 29.01% 47.36% 11.88% 59.24% 20.03% 79.27% 15.92% 95.19% 4.81%
1994 100% 28.86% 47.52% 11.93% 59.45% 20.10% 79.55% 15.68% 95.23% 4.77%
1995 100% 30.26% 48.91% 11.84% 60.75% 19.62% 80.36% 15.03% 95.39% 4.61%
1996 100% 32.31% 50.97% 11.54% 62.51% 18.80% 81.32% 14.36% 95.68% 4.32%
1997 100% 33.17% 51.87% 11.33% 63.20% 18.47% 81.67% 14.05% 95.72% 4.28%
1998 100% 34.75% 53.84% 11.20% 65.04% 17.65% 82.69% 13.10% 95.79% 4.21%
1999 100% 36.18% 55.45% 11.00% 66.45% 17.09% 83.54% 12.46% 96.00% 4.00%
2000 100% 37.42% 56.47% 10.86% 67.33% 16.68% 84.01% 12.08% 96.09% 3.91%
2001 100% 16.06% 33.89% 53.25% 11.64% 64.89% 18.01% 82.90% 13.13% 96.03% 3.97%
2002 100% 15.43% 33.71% 53.80% 11.94% 65.73% 18.16% 83.90% 12.60% 96.50% 3.50%
2003 100% 15.68% 34.27% 54.36% 11.48% 65.84% 18.04% 83.88% 12.65% 96.54% 3.46%
2004 100% 17.44% 36.89% 57.13% 11.07% 68.19% 16.67% 84.86% 11.85% 96.70% 3.30%
2005 100% 19.26% 39.38% 59.67% 10.63% 70.30% 15.69% 85.99% 10.94% 96.93% 3.07%
2006 100% 19.56% 39.89% 60.14% 10.65% 70.79% 15.47% 86.27% 10.75% 97.01% 2.99%
2007 100% 20.19% 40.41% 60.61% 10.59% 71.20% 15.37% 86.57% 10.54% 97.11% 2.89%
2008 100% 18.47% 38.02% 58.72% 11.22% 69.94% 16.40% 86.34% 10.96% 97.30% 2.70%
Source: IRS
Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2008 (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 15.31% 34.47% 26.85% 17.13% 23.49% 14.80% 19.72% 11.91% 17.29% 6.10%
1981 15.76% 33.37% 26.59% 18.16% 23.64% 15.53% 20.11% 12.48% 17.73% 6.62%
1982 14.72% 31.43% 25.05% 16.61% 22.17% 14.35% 18.79% 11.63% 16.57% 6.10%
1983 13.79% 30.18% 23.64% 15.54% 20.91% 13.20% 17.62% 10.76% 15.52% 5.66%
1984 13.68% 29.92% 23.42% 15.57% 20.81% 12.90% 17.47% 10.48% 15.35% 5.77%
1985 13.73% 29.86% 23.50% 15.69% 20.93% 12.83% 17.55% 10.41% 15.41% 5.70%
1986 14.54% 33.13% 25.68% 15.99% 22.64% 12.97% 18.72% 10.48% 16.32% 5.63%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 13.12% 26.41% 22.10% 14.43% 19.77% 11.71% 16.61% 9.45% 14.60% 5.09%
1988 13.21% 24.04% 21.14% 14.07% 19.18% 11.82% 16.47% 9.60% 14.64% 5.06%
1989 13.12% 23.34% 20.71% 13.93% 18.77% 12.08% 16.27% 9.77% 14.53% 5.11%
1990 12.95% 23.25% 20.46% 13.63% 18.50% 12.01% 16.06% 9.73% 14.36% 5.01%
1991 12.75% 24.37% 20.62% 13.96% 18.63% 11.57% 15.93% 9.55% 14.20% 4.62%
1992 12.94% 25.05% 21.19% 13.99% 19.13% 11.39% 16.25% 9.42% 14.44% 4.39%
1993 13.32% 28.01% 22.71% 14.01% 20.20% 11.40% 16.90% 9.37% 14.90% 4.29%
1994 13.50% 28.23% 23.04% 14.20% 20.48% 11.57% 17.15% 9.42% 15.11% 4.32%
1995 13.86% 28.73% 23.53% 14.46% 20.97% 11.71% 17.58% 9.43% 15.47% 4.39%
1996 14.34% 28.87% 24.07% 14.74% 21.55% 11.86% 18.12% 9.53% 15.96% 4.40%
1997 14.48% 27.64% 23.62% 14.87% 21.36% 12.04% 18.18% 9.63% 16.09% 4.48%
1998 14.42% 27.12% 23.63% 14.79% 21.42% 11.63% 18.16% 9.12% 16.00% 4.44%
1999 14.85% 27.53% 24.18% 15.06% 21.98% 11.76% 18.66% 9.12% 16.43% 4.48%
2000 15.26% 27.45% 24.42% 15.48% 22.34% 12.04% 19.09% 9.28% 16.86% 4.60%
2001 14.23% 28.20% 27.50% 23.68% 14.89% 21.41% 11.58% 18.08% 8.91% 15.85% 4.09%
2002 13.03% 28.49% 27.25% 22.95% 13.87% 20.51% 10.47% 16.99% 7.67% 14.66% 3.21%
2003 11.90% 24.64% 24.31% 20.74% 12.22% 18.49% 9.54% 15.38% 7.12% 13.35% 2.95%
2004 12.10% 23.09% 23.49% 20.67% 12.28% 18.60% 9.26% 15.53% 7.01% 13.51% 2.97%
2005 12.45% 22.52% 23.13% 20.78% 12.37% 18.84% 9.27% 15.86% 6.93% 13.84% 2.98%
2006 12.60% 21.98% 22.79% 20.68% 12.60% 18.86% 9.36% 15.95% 7.01% 13.98% 3.01%
2007 12.68% 21.46% 22.45% 20.53% 12.66% 18.79% 9.43% 15.98% 7.01% 14.03% 2.99%
2008 12.24% 22.70% 23.27% 20.70% 12.44% 18.71% 9.29% 15.68% 6.75% 13.65% 2.59%
Source: IRS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues (Receipts) Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980 590,941 517,112 -73,830
1981 678,241 599,272 -78,968
1982 745,743 617,766 -127,977
1983 808,364 600,562 -207,802
1984 851,805 666,488 -185,367
1985 946,344 734,037 -212,308
1986 990,382 769,155 -221,277
1987 1,004,017 854,288 -149,730
1988 1,064,417 854,288 -155,178
1989 1,143,744 991,105 -152,639
1990 1,252,994 1,031,958 -221,036
1991 1,324,226 1,054,988 -269,238
1992 1,381,529 1,091,208 -290,321
1993 1,409,386 1,154,335 -255,051
1994 1,461,753 1,258,566 -203,186
1995 1,515,742 1,351,790 -163,392
1996 1,560,484 1,453,053 -107,431
1997 1,601,116 1,579,232 -21,884
1998 1,652,458 1,721,728 69,270
1999 1,701,842 1,827,452 125,610
2000 1,788,950 2,025,191 236,241
2001 1,862,846 1,991,082 128,236
2002 2,010,894 1,853,136 -157,758
2003 2,159,899 1,782,314 -377,585
2004 2,292,841 1,880,114 -412,727
2005 2,471,957 2,153,611 -318,346
2006 2,655,050 2,406,869 -248,181
2007 2,728,686 2,567,985 -160,701
2008 2,982,544 2,523,991 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 2,104,989 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 2,162,724 -1,293,489
2011 Est. 3,818,819 2,173,700 -1,645,119
2012 Est. 3,728,686 2,627,449 -1,101,237
2013 Est. 3,770,876 3,003,345 -767,531

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

Obama lied, it is Marxist class warfare as the above charts clearly show! Marxist Math!

The Story of Spending

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

Ron Paul Only One Serious About Our Deepening National Financial Crisis

President Obama on Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction

Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

The Empirical Evidence Against Big Government

EAT THE RICH!

Background Articles and Videos

What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise

What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation

What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 46, September 21, 2011: Segment 2: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 46, September 21, 2011: Segment 0: Obama’s Solargate: Solyndra Stimulus Spending Cost Taxpayers An Estimated $535 Million–Crony Capitalism Campaign Contribution Corruption–Videos

Posted on September 20, 2011. Filed under: American History, Business, Climate Change, Computers, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Government, Government Spending, History, Investments, Philosophy, Politics, Solar, Success, Technology, Videos, Wisdom |

Pronk Pops Show 46:September 21, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-46

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Obama’s Solargate: Solyndra Stimulus Spending Cost Taxpayers An Estimated $535 Million–Crony Capitalism Campaign Contribution Corruption–Videos

UPDATED

Dr  Burgess on Fox Business News  Solyndra   YouTube

Why is SOLYNDRA Escaping Media Scrutiny – Fox News, Henican, Asman

    Solyndra asks to auction off factory

Bachmann on Solyndra & son of stimulus

Stearns Comments on Solyndra Execs Taking the Fifth

Barton on Cavuto: Taxpayers deserve answers about how their money was spent

On Fox, Ryan And Cain Bash Solyndra ‘Crony Capitalism’

Rep. Stearns on the Expanding Probe Into Solyndra [FOX 9-15-2011]

Stearns Confirms DOE Projected Solyndra Insolvency in 2009

Solyndra – Where’s the Money [NBC 9-14-2011]

Fox Business: Rep. Barton questions $500 million government investment in failing solar company

NBC Covers Growing Obama Solyndra Scandal

ABC News: Failed Obama Energy Loan a Half Billion Dollar Hit to Taxpayers?

Sean Hannity And Michelle Malkin Talk About All The Crony Capitaliam In The Solyndra Deal

Mark Levin Talks About The Titanic Of Crony Capitalist Obama Hitting The Green Jobs Iceberg Solyndra

Burns Doesn’t See Solyndra Ending Up as Criminal Case

PJTV: Obama’s Pet Solar Energy Company Going Bankrupt

Stearns Joins FOX News on Solyndra

Solyndra bankruptcy..

Obama Energy Official Can’t Say Who Is In Charge Of Giving $535 Million To Bankrupt Solyndra

Solyndra and The DOE Loan Guarantee Program

Pr. Obama at Solyndra (1) California Solar Plant

Pr. Obama at Solyndra (2) California Solar Plant

DOE Gives Out First Loan Guarantee

Solyndra Loan Guarantee Announcement

Solyndra: thin film solar from all angles

Solyndra Fab 2

President Barack Obama’s national industrial policy of betting the American people’s tax dollars on risky investments such as green energy solar panels was hit with a huge financial loss with the bankruptcy of Solyndra Inc. The story is quickly turning into a political scandal involving campaign contributions for an expedited approval of a loan guarantee and delaying the disclosure of Solyndra’s failure to Congress—Obama’s Solargate.

In March 2009, Solyndra became the green energy poster child of successful stimulus spending, securing the first Department of Energy $535 million loan guarantee under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Vice President Joe Biden spoke at the groundbreaking for the construction of the plant via satellite and said, “This announcement today is part of the unprecedented investment this administration is making in renewable energy and exactly what the Recovery Act is all about.”

Obama made a visit to Solyndra in May 2010 and declared “the engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.”

Solyndra started manufacturing cylindrical panels of thin-film solar cells in Fremont, Calif. in 2007. Solyndra originally applied for the loan guarantee under the Bush Administration in 2006. The loan guarantee application was unanimously turned down on Jan. 12, 2009, by the Department of Energy’s credit committee. The application was sent back for additional information and analysis.

The $535 million loan guarantee was in support of a loan for the construction of a commercial-scale manufacturing plant, called Fab2, for Solyndra’s proprietary solar photovoltaic panels. Solyndra estimated in March 2009 the plant construction would employ about 3,000 employees and plant operation would employ about 1,000 in the U.S.

The U.S. solar panel industry faces stiff competition from imports from Chinese companies that are heavily subsidized by state-owned banks that provide financing with very low interest loans. The price of Solyndra’s solar panels could not compete with the much cheaper Chinese imports.

Last month, 30 months after being approved for the loan guarantee Solyndra laid-off nearly all of its 1,100 employees offering no severance package and ceasing all operations.

On Sept. 6, Solyndra filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 bankruptcy and is seeking a buyer for the company. The company owes a total of $783.8 million of which $527.8 million is owed to the federal government, according to documents filed at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. If the company cannot find a buyer, the assets will be sold off to pay its creditors.

The Department of Energy’s Office of the Inspector General is investigating Solyndra.On Sept. 8, DOE had the Federal Bureau of Investigation execute multiple search warrants and raid Solyndra’s headquarters in Fremont.

Since February, the Energy and Commerce Committee has been investigating the Solyndra $535 loan guarantee. On Sept. 14, the committee held hearings on Solyndra and the role of the Obama administration in expediting the approval of the loan-guarantee. Apparently, the DOE also knew in July 2011 that Solyndra could not continue to operate, but it did not inform Congress, which was seeking documents and information on Solyndra.

Solyndra’s chief executive officer Brian Harrison and chief financial officer W.G. Stover were scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. However, they sent letters to the committee that they would not be testify because of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation. Looks like the executives will be pleading their Fifth Amendment rights by refusing to testify under oath to the congressional committee on the grounds that their testimony could be used as evidence to convict them of a criminal offense.

The Obama Administration picked green energy investments as a “winner” industry and technology. Obama staffers said investments in green energy projects would promote energy independence, reduce carbon emissions and create jobs.

A major investor in Solyndra was the George Kaiser Family Foundation. Billionaire investor George B. Kaiser is the 89th richest person on the planet, with a net worth of $9.8 billion in 2011, according to Forbes magazine. Kaiser also just happens to have been a top bundler of campaign contributions to the Obama 2008 Presidential campaign. A bundler collects contributions of many small contributors and bundles them before sending them to candidate’s campaign. Kaiser, himself, backed Obama by contributing $53,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Obama for America.

Kaiser and Solyndra executives made many visits to the White House during the stimulus loan guarantee approval process. The White House monitored and indicated its interest in Solyndra, prior to the Office of Management and Budget review and Department of Energy’s approval of the $535 million loan guarantee.

Simply, it is not the role of the federal government to determine which companies, industries and technologies should be subsidized or given loan guarantees paid for with taxes from Americans.

A national industrial policy that picks winners and losers by subsidizing certain companies, industries and technologies attracts a multitude of economic rent seekers. These rent seekers want a subsidy or loan guarantee for their company or industry. If the politician will give them this subsidy or loan guarantee, the rent seeker will provide the candidate with campaign contributions so that they can be elected or re-elected to public office.

While some businessmen, economists and politicians may label this a stimulus package, others call it bribery or theft by government. It is really nothing more than crony capitalism that corrupts both the political process and the markets.

Under crony capitalism, success in business is determined by how close or well-connected business owners are to public officials. Crony capitalism is usually found where there is rampant government interventionism into the economy in the form of regulations and taxes.

Under free market capitalism, success in business is determined largely by the price and quality of the goods and services a business sells in the market place. Free market capitalism is found where there is little government intervention into the economy, regulations are few and taxes are low. Today crony capitalism is spreading like a cancer around the world, while free market capitalism is a rarity.

Bundlers of campaign contributions are bribing politicians. Bundlers fully expect access and a political payoff once the politician they supported is elected to public office. Obama made sure that his bundlers were generously paid.

Political payoffs can take many forms. In the case of Kaiser, a top bundler of campaign contributions to Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign and whose foundation was a major Solyndra investor, it was a $535 million loan guarantee.

The American people want the loan guarantees, loans, subsidies and bailouts to businesses and unions stopped. They want the massive stimulus spending and deficits that fail to create jobs stopped as well as the corruption of crony capitalism stopped.

Ronald Reagan in his inaugural address Jan. 20, 1981, said it best,: “In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Background Articles and Videos

Cap and Trade: It’s an Energy Tax

(4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER

UPDATED

Solyndra Said to Have Violated Terms of Its U.S. Loan

By DEBORAH SOLOMON

“…Solyndra LLC had such steep financial problems in late 2010 that the company violated terms of its loan-guarantee agreement with the Department of Energy and technically defaulted on its $535 million loan, according to people familiar with the matter.

The failed solar-panel maker, which is under numerous criminal and congressional investigations, ran so short of cash in December 2010 that it was unable to  satisfy certain terms of its U.S. loan agreement, these people said. The agreement required Solyndra to provide $5 million in equity to a subsidiary building its factory but cash-flow problems prevented those payments.

The Energy Department ultimately restructured the loan agreement to help keep the company afloat and Solyndra continued to draw money from its loan.

Solyndra’s cash-flow problems in late 2010 had previously come to light but it was not known that the company technically defaulted on its loan and violated its agreement with the U.S. government.

The company’s financial problems prompted the Energy Department early this year to allow it to reshuffle its debt. Under the arrangement, private investors agreed to provide a new $75 million loan and won the right to be paid ahead of the government if the company was liquidated. …”

“…Solyndra’s problems came to a head in November 2010 when it told the Energy Department it needed $150 million to make it through early 2012, at which time it believed its cash flow would improve. On Dec. 1, 2010, it was unable to make a $5 million payment to its subsidiary and technically defaulted on its loan.

The loan was officially restructured in February 2011, giving the company enough money to carry it through August. The company, which had drawn down $475 million of the U.S. loan as of Dec. 31, 2010, ended up borrowing $527 million before its bankruptcy. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576596601891250510.html

Documents show Solyndra sought second government loan guarantee for $469 million

“…Failed solar panel maker Solyndra’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that seven months after the Obama administration’s Department of Energy approved a $535 million federal loan guarantee, Solyndra applied for a second one valued at $469 million.

“On September 11, 2009, we applied for a second loan guarantee from the DOE, in the amount of approximately $469 million, to partially fund Phase II,” Solyndra wrote in a report it filed with the SEC on December 18, 2009. “If we are unable to obtain the DOE guaranteed loan in whole or in part, we intend to fund any financing shortfall with some combination of the proceeds of this offering, cash flows from operations, debt financing and additional equity financing.”

“…“Although the DOE determined on November 4, 2009, that our initial application was complete, and we submitted the second part of the application on November 17, 2009, there is no guarantee that the DOE will approve our application in the full amount requested or at all,” the company wrote in its December 18, 2009 SEC filing.

Dan Simmons of the Institute for Energy Research told TheDC that Solyndra’s failure looks even worse in light of its aim for even more taxpayer money in 2009.

“Solyndra saw the American taxpayer as their personal piggy-bank, so it’s no surprise that they wanted another half billion dollar loan from the taxpayer,” Simmons said in an email. “The only surprise is that the Obama administration rejected the second loan. After all, both private and Department of Energy financial analysts were not excited by Solyndra’s prospects before the first loan.” …”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/16/documents-show-solyndra-sought-second-government-loan-guarantee-for-469-million/#ixzz1Yc8684d1

Solyndra

“…Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of CIGS thin-film solar cells based in Fremont, California. The company suspended all of its operations as of August 2011 leaving behind the United States government as its largest creditor.[1]

In May 2010, the company was personally promoted by President Obama in his visit as a model for government investment in green technology,[2] and was also visited by former California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.[3] A $535 million loan guarantee was applied for under the Bush administration but the loan was denied.[4] The $535 million loan guarantee was later granted by the Obama administration. Private investors also invested more than $1 billion into the company.[2]

Due to overseas price pressure coming from China in the period of constructing the new plant, the Fab 2, the company had shut-down its original plant, Fab 1, and simultaneously reduced its staff to approximately 1,100 employees.[5] In early September 2011, the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid-off all employees.[3] The company is also being sued by employees who were abruptly laid-off.[2]

On September 8th, 2011, Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents executed multiple search warrants at the company’s headquarters in Fremont as part of an investigation by the Department of Energy’s Office of the Inspector General.[2]

Technology

Solyndra designed, manufactured and sold solar photovoltaic (PV) systems composed of panels and mounting hardware for large, low-slope commercial rooftops. The panels perform optimally when mounted horizontally and packed closely together, thereby, the company claimed, covering significantly more of the typically available roof area and producing more electricity per rooftop on an annual basis than a conventional panel installation.[6]

The solar panels developed by the company were claimed to be unlike any other product ever tried in the industry. The panels were made of racks of cylindrical tubes (also called tubular solar panels), as opposed to traditional flat panels. Solyndra rolled its copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) thin films into a cylindrical shape and places 40 of them in each 1-meter-by-2-meter panel. The cylindrical solar panels (think of fluorescent tube lights—except in reverse) can absorb energy from every direction (direct, indirect and reflected light).[citation needed]

Each Solyndra cylinder, one inch in diameter, is made up of two tubes. The company used equipment it had developed to deposit CIGS on the outside of the inner tube, which includes up to 200 CIGS cells. On top of the CIGS material, it adds an “optical coupling agent”, which concentrates the sunlight that shines through the outer tube. After inserting the inner tube into the outer tube, each cylinder is sealed with glass and metal to keep out moisture, which erodes CIGS’s performance. The hermetic sealing technology is commonly used in fluorescent bulbs.[7]

When combined with a white roof (the fastest growing segment of the commercial roof industry with over 1 billion square feet installed in 2008 and required for any new commercial construction in California), the company claimed that systems that employ the panels on a given rooftop could produce significantly more electricity in a given year. With a white roof, the panels can capture up to 20% more light than with a black roof.[citation needed]

The other advantage claimed by the company was that the panels did not have to move to track the Sun. The panels are always presenting some of their face directly perpendicular to the Sun.[8] The daily production of flat solar panels has an output curve that has a clear peak while Solyndra claimed their system produced more power throughout the day.

The Solyndra panels allow wind to blow through them. According to the company, these factors enable the installation of PV on a broader range of rooftops without anchoring or ballast, which are inherently problematic.[6] Solyndra claimed that wind and snow loads are negligible and that its panels are lighter in weight per area.[citation needed]

The company claimed the cells themselves convert 12 to 14 percent of sunlight into electricity, an efficiency better than competing CIGS thin-film technologies.[7] However, these efficiencies are for the cells laid flat.[9] The company did not post any numbers when the cells are rolled up. The Solyndra 100/200 spec sheet doesn’t mention the cells nor the panel efficiencies directly. However, calculating from the data provided shows the high-end 210 panel has a field efficiency of about 8.5%.[10]

In 2006, Solyndra began deploying demonstration systems around the world. The company stated the total count was 14 systems and that these systems were each instrumented with highly sensitive radiation, wind speed, temperate and humidity measurement devices to aid in the development of energy yield forecasting software tools, claiming there were more than 1000 Solyndra systems installed around the world and that they shipped its 100th megawatt of panels in March 2011.[citation needed]

Management

Solyndra was led by Brian Harrison, a veteran of Intel Corporation, from July 27, 2010, when Solyndra announced that Brian Harrison had replaced founder Chris Gronet as CEO of the company.

Major investors included George Kaiser Family Foundation, U.S. Venture Partners, CMEA Ventures, Redpoint Ventures, Virgin Green Fund, Madrone Capital Partners, RockPort Capital Partners, Argonaut Private Equity, Masdar and Artis Capital Management.

In 2009, the company posted $100 million dollars in revenue. It was estimated that its production and sales growth could lead to a market cap between $1.76 – 2 billion dollars.[11] 2010 revenues were approximately $140 million.

Other executives include Bill Stover, CFO, Karen Alter, SVP of Marketing, Corby Whitaker, VP, Sales United States, John Gaffney, Corporate Counsel and Ben Bierman, EVP Operations and Engineering.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

Sondra faces House subcommittee hearings

Executives of the bankrupt solar energy equipment maker are likely to field questions about whether its $535-million stimulus loan was granted because of Solyndra’s financial ties to a major Democratic fundraiser.

“… Solar energy equipment maker Solyndra Inc., reeling from a recent bankruptcy filing and FBI raids last week on its Bay Area office and executives’ homes, faces a public and probably embarrassing reckoning before a House subcommittee.

The hearings Wednesday are the latest step by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its oversight arm to push an investigation it launched in February into the Energy Department’s decision to give Solyndra a $535-million loan guarantee under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. …”

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/13/business/la-fi-solyndra-hearing-20110913

Big Name Investors Behind Obama’s Failed Green Tech Bet First in Line to Recoup Losses

By Michael Grunwald | September 3, 2011

“…Republicans are already dancing on the grave of Solyndra,
the solar panel manufacturer that received a $535 million federal loan
in 2009 and collapsed on Wednesday. Here’s more music they can dance to:
Sources tell me the Obama administration restructured the loan this
winter, so taxpayers probably won’t even be the first creditors to get
paid after Solyndra files for bankruptcy next week. The first $75
million will go to two Solyndra investors who poured in extra cash when
the company nearly went bust in January. And one of them is a venture
associated with the billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama campaign
bundler.

The other investor is a partnership associated with the Walton
family, which tends to lean Republican. And public filings suggest that
Kaiser-linked funds had sunk at least $320 million into Solyndra before
adding the secured financing; they’re taking a bath along with the rest
of us. “If this was a sweetheart deal, it was the worst sweetheart deal
ever,” one official quipped.

So why did the administration agree to the restructuring? The short
answer, in poker terms, is that it felt pot-committed. It had already
made a big bet; it didn’t want to fold if there was still a chance of
winning. The slightly longer answer is that administration officials
thought (as I did) that Solyndra was back on track, and that giving the
company a new lease on life would benefit taxpayers even if it
ultimately failed. A fuller explanation culled from government documents
follows. …”

Obama’s Pet Billionaire at Solyndra May Take White House Down

“…Solyndra LLC’s workers making solar-power panels in a California factory
subsidized by U.S. taxpayers showed “the promise of clean energy isn’t
just an article of faith,” President Barack Obama said on a visit to the
company in May 2010.

Two months before Obama’s visit, accounting
firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP warned that Solyndra, the recipient of
$535 million in federal loan guarantees, had financial troubles deep
enough to “raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a
going concern.”

The Obama administration stood by Solyndra
through the auditor’s warning, the abandonment of a planned initial
public offering and a last-ditch refinancing where taxpayers took a back
seat to new investors. That unwavering commitment has come under
increasing scrutiny since the company’s travails culminated in its
filing for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6 and a raid on its
headquarters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation two days later. …”

http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2011/09/12/obamas-pet-billionaire-solyndra-may-take-white-house-down

The Phony Solyndra Solar Scandal

by davejFollow

“…The economy tanked and cut demand, and at the same time Solyndra
could not compete with subsidized companies located in China as they
rapidly scaled up. So Solyndra ran out of money. Conservatives and oil
interests are using the bankruptcy as a platform to attack green energy
and the idea of green jobs in general, solar power in particular,
President Obama as always, stimulus funding and the idea of developing a
national strategic industrial policy to push back on China and others
who have their own national policies to win this key industry of the
future.

Conservative Attacks

Conservative are accusing the Obama administration of corruption in
choosing Solyndra to receive a government loan guarantee. The typical
conservative-outlet story follows a template of Glenn-Beckian
accusations that someone “connected to” Obama has “ties” to something.
When you hear the phrasing “has ties to” you should understand this as
code-speak for “has nothing to do with but can be made to appear to have
some sinister involvement if you twist the wording a certain way.” …”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016840/-The-Phony-Solyndra-Solar-Scandal

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 46, September 21, 2011: Segment 1: Eat The Rich!–Vote Obama In 2012 For More Spending, More Taxes, More Deficits, More Debt, More Unemployment, More Recession–No Hope–No Change–No Deal!–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 46, September 21, 2011: Segment 2: Ron Paul On U.S. Foreign Policy–Mutually Assured Destruction vs Mutually Assured Respect –Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Pronk Pops Show 45, September 14, 2011: Segment 1: Republican Debate September 12, 2011–Tea Party–CNN–Videos

Posted on September 14, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Private Sector Unions, Public Sector Unions, Security, Social Science, Socials Security, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 Segment 1: Republican Debate September 12, 2011–Tea Party–CNN–Videos

P1 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

P2 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

P3 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

P4 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

P5 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #1: Social Security

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #2: How Do You Protect Seniors When So Much Goes To Defense?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #3: What Would You Do To Get The Economy Moving Forward?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #4: Can You Be Pro Business & Pro Worker?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #5: Should The Federal Reserve Be Audited?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #6: How Much Of My Pay Check Should I Be Allowed To Keep?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #7: Executive Orders

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #8: What Is Your Plan To Reduce Healthcare Cost?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #9: What Would You Do To Remove Illegal Immigrants?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #10: Do You Plan To Decrease Defense Spending?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #11: What Would You Bring To The White House?

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 45, September 14, 2011: Segment 0: Obama Proposes Tax Increases To Pay For Jobs/Stimulus Spending Package–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 45, September 14, 2011: Segment 0: Obama Proposes Tax Increases To Pay For Jobs/Stimulus Spending Package–Videos

Posted on September 14, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Private Sector Unions, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Security, Social Science, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Obama Proposes Tax Increases To Pay For Jobs/Stimulus Spending Package–Videos

President Barack Obama addresses Joint Session of Congress in House Chamber

Credit: Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson

“Government spending cannot create additional jobs. If the government provides the funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on the one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other.”

~Ludwig von Mises

In his speech to Congress on Sept. 8, President Barack Obama proposed a $447 billion job’s package consisting of tax decreases and new federal government stimulus spending.

The largest piece of Obama’s proposal is a $240 billion temporary, targeted and timely tax decrease in Social Security taxes for employees and employers of 3.1 percent each for 2012. Employees and employers would pay half of what they normally pay of 6.2 percent each or a total of 12.4 percent up to an income limit which will be $106,800 in 2012.

While this would certainly provide additional income for both workers and businesses to spend, save or invest, it would not directly help the unemployed who are more likely to quickly spend any additional income they receive. While the employed would have additional income, it is not clear whether most individuals would either consume or save this additional income.

In addition, both Social Security and Medicare are running deficits and this temporary tax decrease would make the Social Security deficit even worse for 2012. However, Obama’s plan does require that the loss in Social Security payroll tax revenues must be paid for by additional taxes.

Stanford University economist John B. Taylor argues against “temporary, targeted, and timely” fiscal stimulus packages in a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled “Why permanent tax cuts are the best stimulus, short-term fiscal policies fail to promote long-term growth.” Taylor wrote “According to the permanent-income theory of Milton Friedman, or the life-cycle theory of Franco
Modigliani, temporary increases in income will not lead to significant increases in consumption. However, if increases are longer-term, as in the case of permanent tax cut, then consumption is increased, and by a significant amount.” Two examples of a “temporary, targeted and timely” fiscal stimulus plans are Obama’s first stimulus package of $787 billion and his second proposed jobs/stimulus/tax package of $447 billion.

Instead, Taylor argues for permanent, pervasive and predictable tax changes to stimulate the economy and create more jobs. The
FairTax is an example of a permanent, pervasive and predictable fiscal stimulus that would dramatically increase the real growth rate of the U.S. gross domestic product and reduce the unemployment rate.

According to the Americans for Fair Taxation website, “The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift,
estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.”

Obama said “pass this bill” several times in his speech. The only problem is there was no proposed bill to pass. Once the proposed legislation makes it to Congress, it would need to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to determine the estimated
spending outlays and tax revenue collections by fiscal year over a 10-year time period.

Obama also stated in his speech that the massive jobs/stimulus package would be fully paid for. On Sept. 12, the Obama administration released some crucial details of how the package would be funded, namely by a huge tax increase of $467 billion.

The new tax increases would take effect in 2013 and would collect an estimated $467 billion in additional tax revenues over 10 years.

Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, summarized the tax increases over 10 years including:

  • $405 billion from limiting the itemized deductions for
    charitable contributions and other deductions that can be taken by individuals making
    over $200,000 a year and families making over $250,000;
  • $41 billion from reducing or eliminating tax credits and
    allowances for oil and gas companies;
  • $18 billion from requiring fund managers to pay higher
    taxes on certain income;
  • $3 billion from changing the depreciation of corporate jets
    from five years to seven years.

The $405 billion tax increase for individuals and families comes from limiting deductions to 28 cents per dollar deducted and exemptions on individuals who earn more than $200,000 per year and families who earn more than $250,000.

The additional federal spending and higher tax bills are not likely to pass in the near future. Therefore, it is likely that not enough jobs would be created between now and the next election in 2012 to reduce the unemployment rate significantly. To just keep up with population growth and new entrants into the labor force, the U.S. economy needs to create a minimum of 100,000 jobs per month. To reduce the unemployment by .1 percent per month an additional 150,000 jobs per month needs to be created.

If Obama’s proposed bill were passed in the near future, preliminary estimates are it would create more than 50,000 jobs per month. The U.S. economy is currently creating significantly less than 50,000 jobs per month. As a result, even if the bill were passed, the official unemployment rate would remain at or above 9 percent for 43 months of the Obama administration. This is not the hope and change the American people were expecting from Obama in 2008.

Republicans are not expected to seriously consider Obama’s proposals until they receive Obama’s proposed legislation and the CBO scores it. Republicans are likely to oppose any new tax increases and additional stimulus spending increases. The U.S economy is on the brink of another recession with real GDP growth rates for the first half of 2011 of only .7 percent. Also, the federal budget is in deficit, where spending outlays exceed tax revenues by an estimated $1.64 trillion in fiscal year 2011
and about $1 trillion in fiscal year 2012. This is on top of deficits of $1.41 trillion for fiscal year 2009 and $1.29 billion in fiscal year 2010.

Obama proposed his stimulus spending package, now named the American Jobs Act, to distract the American people from his previous failed economic policies of temporary and targeted tax decreases and massive government spending that has resulted in the official unemployment rate being above 8 percent for his entire administration. Obama knows that the Republican controlled House of Representatives will never pass his proposed legislation which includes a huge tax increase combined with even more government spending when the economy is on the brink of another recession and running massive government deficits. The American Jobs Act is dead on arrival.

Obama in his speech said he will campaign all across the country for his American Jobs Act. When the Republicans pass their own bill, Obama will then blame the Republicans for the high unemployment rate because they did not pass his American Jobs Act.

While this may be smart politics, it is bad economics. With over 25 million Americans searching for a full time job, Obama
should have proposed a permanent, pervasive and predictable fiscal program such as the FairTax to reduce the unemployment rate and increase the growth rate of the U.S. economy..

“The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Obama’s Jobs Speech To Congress- Full Video

Shorter: President Obama’s Jobs Speech

Obama’s Job Speech In 35 Seconds

Sen. Rand Paul Responds To President Obama’s Jobs Speech – 09/08/11

Reaction to Obama Jobs (aka Stimulus) Speech

Obama’s job plan would raise taxes – Press TV News

O.co aka Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne Discussing President Obama’s Job Creation Plan

Would President Obama’s Plan Create ‘Right Kind’ of U.S. Jobs?

Irwin Stelzer on President Obama’s Job Plan

Hartmann: New Deal trumps Raw Deal

President Obama Presents American Jobs Act (Enhanced Version)

What is the FairTax legislation?

Is the FairTax truly progressive?

Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?

What will the transition be like from the income tax to the FairTax?

How does the FairTax impact savings?

Will the FairTax drive the economy down if people stop buying?

Background Articles and Videos

FICA Tax

John Taylor Receives the Bradley Prize — 2010

Epstein and Taylor: Are we all Keynesians now?

John Taylor’s Reason Versus Paul Krugman’s Hyperbole (Part 1 of 2)

John Taylor’s Reason Versus Paul Krugman’s Hyperbole (Part 2 of 2)

Steine Lecture Series with John B. Taylor

The Economy According to Taylor and Judd

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax

“…The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax (play /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax[1] imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare[2]
—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits. The amount that one pays in payroll taxes throughout one’s working career is indirectly tied to the social security benefits annuity that one receives as a retiree.[citation needed] This has led some to claim that the payroll tax is not a tax because its collection is tied to a benefit.[3] The United States Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that no one has an accrued property right to benefits from Social Security.

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act is currently codified at Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 21 of the United States Code.[4]

Overview

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[5] The FICA tax is considered a regressive tax on income (with no standard deduction or personal exemption deduction) and is imposed (for the years 2009 and 2010) only on the first $106,800 of gross wages. The tax is not imposed on investment income (such as interest and dividends).

“Regular” employees (most wage-earners)

For 2008, the employee’s share of the Social Security portion of the tax is 6.2%[6] of gross compensation up to a limit of $102,000 of compensation (resulting in a maximum of $6,324.00 in tax). For 2009 and 2010, the employee’s share is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $106,800 of compensation (resulting in a maximum Social Security tax of $6,621.60).[7] This limit, known as the Social Security Wage Base, goes up each year based on average national wages and, in general, at a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). For the calendar year 2011, the employee’s share has been temporarily reduced to 4.2% of gross compensation, with a limit of $106,800.[8] The employee’s share of the Medicare portion is 1.45% of wages, with no
limit on the amount of wage subject to the Medicare tax.[6]

The employer is also liable for 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare taxes,[9] making the total Social Security tax 12.4% of wages, and the total Medicare tax 2.9%. (Self-employed people are responsible for the entire FICA percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% + 2.9%), since they are in a sense both the employer and the employed; however, see the section on self-employed people for more details.)

If a worker starts a new job halfway through the year and has already earned the wage base limit for Social Security purposes, the new employer is not allowed to stop withholding until the wage base limit has been earned with the new employer. There are some limited cases, such as a successor-predecessor transfer, in which the payments that have already been withheld can be counted toward the year-to-date total.

If a worker has overpaid toward Social Security by having more than one job or by having switched jobs during the year, that worker can file a request to have that overpayment counted as tax paid when he or she files a Federal income tax return. If the taxpayer is due a refund, then the FICA overpayment is refunded.

Self-employed people

A tax similar to the FICA tax is imposed on the earnings of self-employed individuals, such as independent contractors and members of a partnership. This tax is imposed not by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act but instead by the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954, which is codified as Chapter 2 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1401 through 26 U.S.C. § 1403 (the “SE Tax Act”). Under the SE Tax Act, self-employed people are responsible for the entire percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% [Soc. Sec.] + 2.9% [Medicare]); however, the 15.3% multiplier is applied to 92.35% of the business’s net earnings from self-employment, rather than 100% of the gross earnings; the difference, 7.65%, is half of the 15.3%, and makes the calculation fair in comparison to that of regular (non-self-employed) employees. It does this by adjusting for the fact
that employees’ 7.65% share of their SE tax is multiplied against a number (their gross income) that does not include the putative
“employer’s half” of the self-employment tax. In other words, it makes the calculation fair because employees don’t get taxed on their employers’ contribution of the second half of FICA, therefore self-employed people shouldn’t get taxed on the second half of the self-employment tax. Similarly, self-employed people also deduct half of their self-employment tax (schedule SE) from their gross income on the way to arriving at their adjusted gross income (AGI). This levels the amount paid by self-employed persons in comparison to regular employees, who don’t pay general income tax on their employers’ contribution of the second half of FICA, just as they didn’t pay FICA tax on it either.[10][11]

These calculations are made on Schedule SE: Self-Employment Tax, although that is not readily apparent to novice self-employed taxpayers, owing to the schedule’s rather opaque name, which makes it sound like it is part of the general federal income tax. Some taxpayers have complained that Schedule SE’s title should be changed to something such as “Self-Employment FICA Tax”, so that its separateness from the general income tax is apparent,[12] perhaps not realizing that the SE tax is not imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) at all, and that neither SE taxes nor FICA taxes are “income taxes” imposed under Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Exemption for certain full-time students

A special case in FICA regulations includes exemptions for student workers. Students enrolled at least half-time in a university and working part-time for the same university are exempted from FICA payroll taxes, so long as their relationship with the university is primarily an educational one.[13] Medical residents working full-time are not considered students and are not exempt from FICA payroll taxes, according to a US Supreme Court ruling in 2011.[14] In order to be exempt from FICA payroll taxes, a student’s work must be “incident to” pursuit of a course of study, which is rarely the case with full-time employment.[14]

History

Prior to the Great Depression, the following presented difficulties for working-class Americans: [15]

  • The U.S. had no federal-government-mandated retirement savings; consequently, for those people who had not voluntarily saved money throughout their working lives, the end of their work careers was the end of all income.
  • Similarly, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for citizens disabled by injuries (of any kind—non-work-related); consequently, for most people, a disabling injury meant no more income (since most people have little to no income except earned income from work).
  • In addition, there was no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for people unable to ever work during their lives, such as anyone born with severe mental retardation.
  • Further, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated health insurance for the elderly; consequently, for many people, the end of their work careers was the end of their ability to pay for medical care.
  • Finally, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated health insurance for all those who are not elderly; consequently, many people, especially those with pre-existing conditions, have no ability to pay for medical care.

In the 1930s, the New Deal introduced Social Security to rectify the first three problems (retirement, injury-induced disability, or congenital disability). It introduced the FICA tax as the means to pay for Social Security.

In the 1960s, Medicare was introduced to rectify the fourth problem (health care for the elderly). The FICA tax was increased in order to pay for this expense.

Criticism

Social Security regressivity debate

The Social Security component of the FICA tax is regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases.[16] The Social Security component is actually a flat tax for wage levels under the Social Security Wage Base (see “Regular” employees above). But since no tax is owed on wages above the Wage Base limit, the total tax rate declines as wages increase beyond that limit. In other words, for wage levels above the limit, the absolute dollar amount of tax owed remains constant; since this number (the numerator) remains constant while the wage level (the denominator) increases, the
effective tax rate steadily decreases as wage levels increase beyond the Wage Base limit.

FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as “unearned income” tends to rise with higher income brackets.

Some argue that since Social Security taxes are eventually returned to taxpayers, with interest, in the form of Social Security benefits, the regressiveness of the tax is effectively negated.[citation needed] That is, the taxpayer gets back what he or she put into the Social Security system. Others, including the Congressional Budget Office, point out that the Social Security system as a whole is progressive;
individuals with lower lifetime average wages receive a larger benefit (as a percentage of their lifetime average wage income) than do individuals with higher lifetime average wages.[17][18] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 45, September 14, 2011: Segment 1: Republican Debate September 12, 2011–Tea Party–CNN–Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

‘Ponzi’ President Obama Proposes Cutting Social Security By Cutting Payroll Taxes–Totally Irresponsible–Videos

See Something–Say Something–Son of Stimulus Spending Speech Scares Stockholders–Stagflation–Videos

Senator Rand Paul Response To President Obama’s Jobs Speech–The Tea Party Plan For Putting Americans Back To Work–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 44, September 7, 2011: Segment 1: No Hope: Consumer Confidence Craters–No Change: Official Unemployment Rate Above 8% and Total Unemployment Rate Above 15% For Entire Obama Administration–Great Obama Recession Economy (GORE)–Videos

Posted on September 6, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Networking, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Private Sector Unions, Public Sector Unions, Tax Policy, Unions, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 40:August 10, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 39:August 3, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: No Hope: Consumer Confidence Craters–No Change: Official Unemployment Rate Above 8% and Total Unemployment Rate Above 15% For Entire Obama Administration–Great Obama Recession Economy (GORE)–Videos

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Employers Added No Net Jobs in August, Unemployment Rate Unchanged at 9.1%

August 30th 2011 CNBC Stock Market (Consumer Confidence)

Spector Says Consumer Confidence Reflects Leadership

Mike Ryan, SVP of Madison Performance Group Discusses August Unemployment Rate on Fox News Live

September 2nd 2011 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (August Jobs Report) Part 1 of 2

Unemployment Rate Unchanged at 9.1% — September 2, 2011

Where are the Jobs? The Parallels between Today and the Great Depression

US to face long-term crisis if unemployment rate continues around 9 percent

Edwards Says New U.S. Budget Data to Be `Depressing’

Lew Rockwell – “Politicians Are Just Bank Employees! We Need To Overthrow The Banks!”

Milton Friedman – The Great Depression Myth

Milton Friedman – Socialism vs. Capitalism

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul on Future of Unemployment

US economy created no job growth in August, data show

First time since 1945 that government has reported net monthly job change of zero

“…Nonfarm payrolls were unchanged last month, the Labor Department said Friday. It was the first time since 1945 that the government has reported a net monthly job change of zero. The August payrolls report was the worst since September 2010, while nonfarm employment for June and July was revised to show 58,000 fewer jobs. …”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44370462/ns/business/

Employers Add No Net Jobs in Aug.; Rate Unchanged

“…Employers stopped adding jobs in August, an alarming setback for an economy that has struggled to grow and might be at risk of another recession.

It was the weakest jobs report since September 2010. The unemployment rate remained at 9.1 percent.

Stock futures plunged on the news. In the 15 minutes after the report was released, Dow futures fell 94 points, from 11,401 to 11,318.

A strike by 45,000 Verizon workers lowered the job totals. Those workers are now back on the job.

The weakness in employment was underscored by revisions to the jobs data for June and July. Collectively, those figures were lowered to show 57,000 fewer jobs added. The downward revisions were all in government jobs.

The average work week also declined and hourly earnings fell by 3 cents to $23.09. …”

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=14432646

Unemployment Level

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7100 6900 6721 6836 6766 6980 7149 7085 7191 7272 7261 7664
2008 7653 7441 7781 7606 8398 8590 8953 9489 9557 10176 10552 11344
2009 11984 12737 13278 13734 14512 14776 14663 14953 15149 15628 15206 15212
2010 14842 14860 14943 15138 14884 14593 14637 14849 14746 14876 15041 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542 13747 13914 14087 13931 13967

Official Unemployment Rate U-3

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1

Labor Force Participation Rate

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.8 65.8
2009 65.7 65.7 65.6 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.1 65.0 64.7
2010 64.8 64.8 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.7 64.6 64.7 64.7 64.5 64.5 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.1 63.9 64.0

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.1 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.8
2008 9.1 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.9 11.2 11.9 12.7 13.6
2009 14.1 15.0 15.6 15.8 16.4 16.6 16.5 16.8 17.0 17.4 17.1 17.2
2010 16.5 16.8 16.8 17.0 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.7 17.1 17.0 17.0 16.7
2011 16.1 15.9 15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1 16.2

Unemployment Rate For 16-19 Years of Age

Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.8 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 16.0 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.5 16.0 15.8 19.0 19.2 20.8 18.7 19.2 20.0 20.3 20.6
2009 20.8 21.9 22.1 22.1 23.3 24.6 24.4 25.4 26.1 27.1 26.9 26.8
2010 26.2 25.0 26.0 25.4 26.4 25.8 26.1 26.2 26.0 27.1 24.5 25.4
2011 25.7 23.9 24.5 24.9 24.2 24.5 25.0 25.4

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed         	     USDL-11-1277
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, September 2, 2011

Technical information:
 Household data:       (202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:   (202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:         (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov

                         THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- AUGUST 2011

Nonfarm payroll employment was unchanged (0) in August, and the unemployment
rate held at 9.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment in most major industries changed little over the month. Health
care continued to add jobs, and a decline in information employment reflected
a strike. Government employment continued to trend down, despite the return
of workers from a partial government shutdown in Minnesota.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons, at 14.0 million, was essentially unchanged
in August, and the unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent. The rate has shown
little change since April. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (8.9
percent), adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (25.4 percent), whites
(8.0 percent), blacks (16.7 percent), and Hispanics (11.3 percent) showed
little or no change in August. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.1 percent,
not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was
about unchanged at 6.0 million in August and accounted for 42.9 percent of the
unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The labor force rose to 153.6 million in August. Both the civilian labor force
participation rate, at 64.0 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at
58.2 percent, were little changed. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.4 million to 8.8
million in August. These individuals were working part time because their
hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
(See table A-8.)

About 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in
August, up from 2.4 million a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were
available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work
in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 977,000 discouraged workers in
August, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work
because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.6
million persons marginally attached to the labor force in August had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as
school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment, at 131.1 million, was unchanged (0) in
August. Employment changed little in most major private-sector industries.
(See table B-1.)

Health care employment rose by 30,000 in August. Ambulatory health care
services and hospitals added 18,000 and 8,000 jobs, respectively. Over the
past 12 months, health care employment has grown by 306,000.

Employment in mining continued to trend up in August (+6,000). Since reaching
a trough in October 2009, employment in mining has risen by 144,000, with
mining support activities accounting for most of the gain.

Within professional and business services, computer systems design and related
services added 8,000 jobs in August. Employment in temporary help services
changed little over the month (+5,000) and has shown little movement on net so
far this year.

Employment in the information industry declined by 48,000 in August. About
45,000 workers in the telecommunications industry were on strike and thus off
company payrolls during the survey reference period.

Manufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in August (-3,000),
following a gain of 36,000 in July. For the past 4 months, manufacturing has
added an average of 14,000 jobs per month, compared with an average of 35,000
jobs per month in the first 4 months of the year.

Elsewhere in the private sector, employment in construction; trade,
transportation, and utilities; financial activities; and leisure and
hospitality changed little over the month. 

Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-17,000).
Despite the return of about 22,000 workers from a partial government shutdown
in Minnesota, employment in state government changed little in August (+5,000).
Employment in local government continued to decline. Since employment peaked
in September 2008, local government has lost 550,000 jobs.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged
down by 0.1 hour over the month to 34.2 hours. The manufacturing workweek
was 40.3 hours for the third consecutive month; factory overtime increased
by 0.1 hour over the month to 3.2 hours. The average workweek for production
and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged down to 33.5
hours in August, after holding at 33.6 hours for the prior 6 months. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)

In August, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls decreased by 3 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $23.09. This decline
followed an 11-cent gain in July. Over the past 12 months, average hourly
earnings have increased by 1.9 percent. In August, average hourly earnings
of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees decreased by
2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $19.47. (See tables B-3 and B-8.) 

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from
+46,000 to +20,000, and the change for July was revised from +117,000 to
+85,000.

_____________
The Employment Situation for September is scheduled to be released on Friday,
October 7, 2011, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 44, September 7, 2011: Segment 0: Union Thug Hoffa Threatens To Take Out The Tea Party At Labor Day Rally–Obama “Proud” of Hoffa–Videos

Posted on September 6, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Private Sector Unions, Public Sector Unions, Unions, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 44:September  7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 40:August 10, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 39:August 3, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0: Union Thug Hoffa Threatens To Take Out The Tea Party At Labor Day Rally–Obama “Proud” of Hoffa–Videos

JIMMY HOFFA “LET’S TAKE THESE SOB’S OUT”

Obama Wants the Tea Party “Taken Out”…

Michael Savage Speaks Up For Tea Party, Attacks Jimmy Hoffa and Barack Obama – (9/6/11)

Obama Rally James Hoffa ‘We Are Your Army. Let’s Take These Sons Of Bitches Out’

President Obama talks tough at jobs rally in Detroit

President Obama’s Labor Day Message: We’ve Got to Fully Restore the Middle Class in America

Obama Says He Is “Proud” Of Hoffa After Union Leader’s Remarks

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/obama_says_he_is_proud_of_hoffa.html

 

Rush Limbaugh – Don Hoffa Said It, Just How Obama Wrote It Part One

Rush Limbaugh – Don Hoffa Said It, Just How Obama Wrote It Part Two

Hoffa – You can’t deal with the tea party [CNN 9-05-2011]

Barack Obama on the Employee Free Choice Act

The Battle Over Card Check Has Begun

Card Check Forced Unionism Victims in Albion, Indiana Interviewed by Fox News

Former Union Organizing Director discusses Card Check

Rush Limbaugh – Comments On Obama’s Speech

Rush Limbaugh – Obama’s Pep Rally

Charles Krauthammer discusses Jared Loughner on O’Reilly

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik on the day of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

Sheriff Dupnik Claims Giffords’ Shooting Fault Of Talk Radio

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Attacks Rush Limbaugh

Clarence Dupnik, Pima County AZ Sheriff, Blames AZ Political Culture for Shooting

AZ Sheriff Dupnik Liberal smear machine backfires – Tuscon AZ Sheriff’s “vitriolic rhetoric” on Fox

Krauthammer: Rush has a Condescending View of America

Historians Weigh Significance of Obama Tucson Speech

Shields and Brooks on Obama’s Tucson Speech, Calls for Political Civility

President Obama Speech at Tucson, AZ Memorial Service

What ‘New Tone?’ The Lunacy of Audacity & Hypocrisy On Full Display: Obama Vs. His Own Democrats

International Brotherhood of Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa and President Barack H. Obama addressed a Sept. 5 Labor Day rally largely of auto workers and union members in a parking lot of a General Motors plant in Detroit, Michigan.

Hoffa in introducing Obama used incendiary class warfare rhetoric to warm up the crowd:

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war.”

Hoffa concluded his remarks with a threat directed at the American people who support the tea party movement:

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. …”

 “… Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”

Hoffa’s so-called “army” of union members has been shrinking for decades as the American people reject union representation and membership. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), in 2010 union membership declined by 617,000 to 14.7 million of the labor force. The 14.7 million union workers consist of 7.1 million in the private sector and 7.6 million in the public sector. Only 6.9 percent of workers in the private sector are unionized, while 36 percent in the public sector are unionized. The percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union or similar organization has declined by 8.2 percent from 20.1 percent in 1983 to 11.9 percent of the labor force in 2010.

The Tea Party movement wants the Federal government to balance its budget by cutting government spending. This is a direct threat to unions, especially public sector unions, such as the National Education Association (NEA) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) who advocate for increasing the size and scope of the Federal government.

Increases in government spending lead to more government workers, many of whom become dues paying union members. This in turn leads to more campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. Unions are one of the major supporters of the Democratic Party and Obama in terms of campaign contributions paid from union member dues.

The number one priority of organized labor has been the passage of card check. Card check forces workers to sign a union authorization card in public instead of the current system where workers vote for or against unionization by secret ballot. Under card check a secret ballot election would be bypassed provided the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) verifies that over 50 percent of the employees have signed the authorization cards. President Obama and the Democratic Party have been unsuccessful in their efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Other union leaders joining Hoffa and Obama at the Labor Day rally included American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) President Richard Trumka, United Auto Workers President Bob King, and SEIU President Mary Kay Henry.

When Obama addressed the crowd after Hoffa’s introduction, he said he was “proud” of Hoffa and the other labor union leaders.

On Jan. 8, 2011 there was a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona where Jared Loughner, a mentality disturbed individual, killed six people including United States District Court for the District of Arizona Chief Judge John Roll  and wounded thirteen including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Initially there were attempts by Democrats to blame the shootings on talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin. Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, a Democrat, blamed harsh conservative rhetoric on talk radio and in particular Rush Limbaugh. Dupnik remarked after the shootings:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

The allegations were simply false and had no basis in fact. It turned out there was absolutely no connection found between the shooter, Loughner, and talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin. Limbaugh was right, the Sheriff made a complete fool of himself.

The American people and the Tea Party movement remember well Obama’s inspiring Tucson memorial speech for the victims of shootings when he said:

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

Christina-Taylor Green, who was born on September 11, 2011, was one of the Tucson shooting victims. She was also one of the babies in the book, Faces of Hope, a book picturing 50 babies born on Sept. 11, 2001. Referring to Christina, Obama said:

“…Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us – we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations. …”

Many Americans and Tea Party members bring their children to Tea Party events all across America to exercise their right under the United States Constitution to peaceful assembly and free speech.

It is time for President Obama and union leaders to live up to our children’s expectations and condemn Hoffa’s remarks.

Background Articles and Videos

BLS Report Shows Union Membership in Decline

by Stephen D. Smith on January 24, 2011
“…Union membership in the United States continued to decline in 2010, according to a recently-released reportissued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The data contained in the report was obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which conducts monthly assessments of basic information on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. The annual report on union membership finds that the number of wage and salary workers who belong to a union declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million in 2010 (7.1 million workers in the private sector; 7.6 million in the public sector). An additional 1.6 million workers (783,000 of whom are government employees) held jobs that were covered by a union contract, but reported no union affiliation. Overall, the union membership rate fell to 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent the prior year. In contrast, the union membership rate in 1983 – the first year comparable data was available – was 20.1 percent, representing 17.7 million workers. Other notable findings include the following:
  • A substantially higher percentage of public sector workers, 36.2 percent, were unionized, compared to 6.9 percent for the private sector.
  • Private sector industries with the highest union participation rates include transportation and utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1 percent).
  • Private sector industries with the lowest union participation rates include agriculture and related industries (1.6 percent) and financial activities (2.0 percent).
  • Broken down by occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (37.1 percent) and protective service occupations (34.1 percent) had the highest unionization rates; sales and related occupations (3.2 percent) and farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (3.4 percent) had the lowest unionization rates.
  • New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent), while North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). About half of the 14.7 million union members in the U.S. lived in just six states (California, 2.4 million; New York, 2.0 million; Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.8 million; Ohio, 0.7 million; and New Jersey, 0.6 million). Overall, union membership rates declined in 2010 in 33 states and the District of Columbia, and rose in 17 states.
  • With respect to union member demographics, membership rates tended to be greater among men (12.6 percent) than women (11.1 percent). African American workers had the highest participation rate (13.4 percent), with Asian men having the lowest rate (9.4 percent). Union membership was also highest among workers ages 55-64 (15.7 percent).

Union Members 2010

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 44, September 7, 2011: Segment 1: No Hope: Consumer Confidence Craters–No Change: Official Unemployment Rate Above 8% and Total Unemployment Rate Above 15% For Entire Obama Administration–Great Obama Recession Economy (GORE)–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...