Society

News Journal: Number 35, December 1, 2010: The Audacity of Grope: A TSA Exposé–Progressive Pervert Petulent Prevaricating President–Must View Video!

Posted on December 1, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Democratic Party, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Policies, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Public Relations, Radio, Recordings, Republican Party, Society, Speech, Television, Web | Tags: Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Crime, Full Body Scanners, Pat Downs, President Obama, Ron Paul, Security, The Audicity of Grope: TSA Expose, TSA, United States Constitution |

Campaign for Liberty launches a public relations campaign against President Obama’s TSA government interventionism:

“…Got questions about the TSA? This video’s got answers. Jam-packed with all the information you need to get up to speed on the 2010 holiday airport security uproar. Get the inside scoop on full body scanners, radiation health risks, pat-downs, screw-ups, underwear bombers, cavity searches, special interests, government officials, the Constitution (specifically, the 4th Amendment), scanner storage capability, and hear from some of the most engaged minds in the debate; including Congressman Ron Paul…”

Campaign for Liberty Mission Statement

“Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.”

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php

http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty

One point that the above video failed to address is the spread of disease as a direct result of the TSA not changing their blue gloves after each pat down.

Instead the TSA screeners use the same pair of blue gloves most of the day.

Imagine going to a doctor or dentist who wore the same blue gloves while examining many patients during the day.

An unintended consequence of the government grope will be the spread of the various influenza (flu) viruses.

The time has come to stop this security theater nonsense and start profiling passengers and targeting individuals that are more likely to be terrorist bombers.

Flawless Airline Security on Israeli Planes

TSA: Enemy of the American People?

Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far

Enough is enough.

Terminate the TSA peepers and pat downs.

President Obama responds:

President Obama explains the new TSA Airport Security Screenings

Wink

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

News Journal: Number 33, November 9, 2010: Tea Party Movement Expects Republican Party To Balance The Budget By Cutting Spending Now!

Posted on November 9, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Balanced Budgets, Banking, Budget, Communications, Debt, Deficits, Democratic Party, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Issues, Mass Media, Monetary Policy, Money, News, Newspapers, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Republican Party, Society, Taxes, Web | Tags: Austrian Economics, Balanced Budget, Closing Federal Departments, Deficit Spending, Economics, FairTax, Federal Spending, Fiscal Policy, Keynesian Economics, Monetary Policy, Republican Party, Taxes, Tea Party Movement |

Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Economics 101 – It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes!

Deficits are Bad, but the Real Problem is Spending

Meltzer Says U.S. Economic Programs Have Been `Foolish’

Ron Paul – Dr. Allan Meltzer

No Compromise: Issa, Ryan and Cantor Will Cut Runaway Federal Spending

Eric Cantor Discusses Tax Rates, Ending Earmarks & Cutting Spending On Fox News Sunday

Rand Paul: GOP must consider military spending cuts

Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988)

The tea party movement is expecting the Republican Party to balance the Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012 budgets or face the consequences or fate in 2012 of the big spending Democrats in this past election.

Instead the Republican Party is talking about a Fiscal Year 2008 level of total outlays of about $3 trillion dollars.

This is definitely an improvement over President Obama’s estimated budget deficits exceeding over $1,000 billion in FY 2010 and FY 2011.

However, it still would not come close to balancing the budget in FY 2011 where tax revenues are expected to be about $2,567 billion.

Unfortunately the deficit would be about $400 billion for the total combined on-budget and off-budget.

Refer to the following receipts and outlay estimates at:

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789–2015

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

The total estimated tax revenues for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $2,567 billion and $2,926 billion respectively for the combined on-budget and off-budget.

The total estimated outlays for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $3,834 billion and $3,755 billion respectively for the combined on-budget and off-budget.

The total estimated deficits for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $1,267 billion and $828 billion respectively for combined on-budget and off-budget.

To balance the combined on-budget and off-budget the FY 2011 outlays would need to about the level of Fiscal Year 2005 of $2,472 billion.

To balance the combined on-budget and off-budget the FY 2012 outlays would need to about the level of Fiscal Year 2008 of $2,983 billion.

Either balance the budget or face the consequences in 2012.

Stop dithering.

Start shutting down entire Federal Departments, agencies and programs.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Pass the FairTax and limit future outlays or expenditures for the total on-budget and off-budget to 80% of previous year’s tax revenue from the FairTax.

The FairTax: It’s Time

The remaining 20% of FairTax revenues would go to pay down the debt.

Time for some real change and hope.

Stop spending our future and balance the budget.

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Background Articles and Videos

Keynesian Economics vs. Austrian Economics

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

“…The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover – falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics – urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.”² By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

It is instructive to compare the American response in this period to that of Japan. In 1920, the Japanese government introduced the fundamentals of a planned economy, with the aim of keeping prices artificially high. According to economist Benjamin Anderson, “The great banks, the concentrated industries, and the government got together, destroyed the freedom of the markets, arrested the decline in commodity prices, and held the Japanese price level high above the receding world level for seven years. During these years Japan endured chronic industrial stagnation and at the end, in 1927, she had a banking crisis of such severity that many great branch bank systems went down, as well as many industries. It was a stupid policy. In the effort to avert losses on inventory representing one year’s production, Japan lost seven years.”³

The U.S., by contrast, allowed its economy to readjust. “In 1920–21,” writes Anderson, “we took our losses, we readjusted our financial structure, we endured our depression, and in August 1921 we started up again. . . . The rally in business production and employment that started in August 1921 was soundly based on a drastic cleaning up of credit weakness, a drastic reduction in the costs of production, and on the free play of private enterprise. It was not based on governmental policy designed to make business good.” The federal government did not do what Keynesian economists ever since have urged it to do: run unbalanced budgets and prime the pump through increased expenditures. Rather, there prevailed the old-fashioned view that government should keep spending and taxation low and reduce the public debt.^{4 …”}

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html

Historical Tables

Historical Tables provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2011 or 2015.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789–2015

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

High Taxes and High Budget Deficits
The Hoover–Roosevelt Tax Increases of the 1930s
by Veronique de Rugy, Fiscal Policy Analyst, Cato Institute

“…Conclusion
The tax increases of the 1930s coincided with large
deficits and economic stagnation. While the monetary and
trade policy mistakes of the 1930s are now widely
understood, the tax policy mistakes are less appreciated.
As Congress grapples with today’s budget deficit and
mediocre economic growth, it should look to the tax cuts
of the 1920s for inspiration rather than the failed “budget
balancing with high taxes” approach of the 1930s.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0303-14.pdf

Can GOP Shrink Government Spending?

Ron Paul in San Francisco – Amazing Speech!

Republicans roll out “Pledge to America”

Background Articles and Videos

Tea party candidates win in Fla., Ky.; lose Del.

“…Two tea party champions won high-profile Senate elections Tuesday, spearheading a likely cadre of libertarian-leaning Republicans who will press party leaders to be more adamant about lower taxes, less spending and smaller government.

Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida rocked the GOP establishment last spring by routing leadership favorites in party primaries. Then they beat back Democrats’ efforts to paint them as too extreme, winning comfortably on Tuesday. However, another well-publicized tea party darling, Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, lost to Democrat Chris Coons. She also won a stunning GOP primary victory, beating longtime Rep. Mike Castle, but she failed to extend her popularity to the broader November electorate. …”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101103/ap_on_el_se/us_senate_14

“…List of Lincoln’s failures

A common list of the failures of Abraham Lincoln (along with a few successes) is:

1831 – Lost his job
1832 – Defeated in run for Illinois State Legislature
1833 – Failed in business
1834 – Elected to Illinois State Legislature (success)
1835 – Sweetheart died
1836 – Had nervous breakdown
1838 – Defeated in run for Illinois House Speaker
1843 – Defeated in run for nomination for U.S. Congress
1846 – Elected to Congress (success)
1848 – Lost re-nomination
1849 – Rejected for land officer position
1854 – Defeated in run for U.S. Senate
1856 – Defeated in run for nomination for Vice President
1858 – Again defeated in run for U.S. Senate
1860 – Elected President (success)

That looks like a pretty glum résumé, making you wonder how he ever made it to the top. But when you really think of it, to run for office or high positions so many times, you have to have something on the ball and have more successes than meet the eye. …”

http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/lincoln_failures.htm

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

News Journal: Number 29, October 26, 2010: American People’s No Confidence Voting Wave Wipes Out Democrats–It’s The Economy Stupid!–Videos

Posted on October 26, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Ethics, Issues, Law, Magazines, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Society, Television, Web | Tags: 2010 U.S. Elections, Democrats, Republicans, Vote of No Confidence |

Republican Governors 35

Republican Senators 51

Republican Representatives 255

The Republicans will pickup a net total of 77 seats in House of Representatives for a total of 255.

The Republicans will also pickup a net total of 10 seats in the Senate for a total of 51 seats.

The American people want to stop the massive Government spending, deficits and bailouts and rising National debt of the Obama Administration.

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Issue number 1 is jobs and the economy with nearly thirty million Americans looking for a full-time job and continuing high rates of unemployment.

www.shadowstats.com

Issue number 2 is massive Federal Government spending, deficits, bailouts and a rising National debt.

The National Debt Road Trip

The Trillion $$$ Dollar U.S. Economic Deficit Caused By Our Government

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Issue number 3 is Obamacare– the American people want it repealed as soon as possible and no money bills or appropriations to fund Obamacare.

Fight Obamacare Texas

Issue number 4 is illegal immigration–the American people want it stopped by immigration law enforcement and a completed border fence that is heavily patrolled.

What Are True Costs And Benefits Of Illegal Immigration?

Stop Illegal Immigration

The American people expect the Republican Party to balance the Federal Budget by significantly reducing Government spending and permanently closing Federal Departments including Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation.

The number of Federal employees should be cut from over 2,000,000 to less than 1,000,000.

3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy

The American people expect the Republican Party to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers and pass the FairTax–it is time!

The FairTax: It’s Time

Should the Republican Party fail to balance the budget and cut the size and scope of the Federal Government by permanently shutting down the above departments, these Republicans will be wiped out by the 2012 wave of tea party patriots.

Background Articles and Videos

Editor in Chief Insights: Obama’s Job Approval Trajectory

President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency

Two-thirds of Americans believe country going off on the wrong track

“…Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president’s downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 3,084 adults surveyed online between October 11 and 18, 2010 by Harris Interactive.

It’s perhaps not surprising that nine in ten Republicans (90%) and Conservatives (89%) give the job the president is doing negative ratings. What may be surprising is that one-third of Democrats (34%) and Liberals (33%) also give him negative ratings, as do seven in ten Independents (70%) and six in ten Moderates (60%).

Americans who give the president the highest positive ratings are those with a post-graduate education (48%), a college education (47%), and those living in the West (42%). On the other end of the spectrum, almost three-quarters of those with a high school education or less (72%) and two-thirds of Midwesterners (66%) and Southerners (66%) give the President negative marks on his overall job.

While the president is at a low point, there is a political body with ratings much lower than his. Just one in ten Americans (11%) give Congress positive ratings on the job they are doing while nine in ten (89%) give them negative marks. While Congress may be under Democratic control, even four in five Democrats (81%) give them negative ratings.

Part of this negativity may have to do with the way Americans believe the country as a whole is going. Just one-third of U.S. adults (34%) say the country is going in the right direction while two-thirds (66%) say it is going off on the wrong track. While not close to the low it was before the 2008 election (11% said things were going in the right direction), this is one of the lower points of this year. …”

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Hi_assets/TopHitPageNews.html

Rasmussen Reports

Trust on Issues

Voters Trust Republicans More on Eight of 10 Key Issues

“…Voters now trust Democrats over Republicans in only two areas – government ethics and corruption by a 41% to 36% margin and education where Democrats have a slight 42% to 40% edge.

The economy continues to be the most important issue on voters’ minds this election, and 49% place their trust in Republicans to handle this issue. Thirty-nine percent (39%) trust Democrats more. These findings show little change from early June 2009.

On the issue of health care, which voters place second on the list of important issues, Republicans hold a modest 47% to 40% advantage. Democrats were trusted more on this issue until the debate over a proposed national health care bill began to heat up in early September of last year.

Most voters continue to favor repeal of the national health care law, but the number of voters who expect the law to increase the deficit has fallen to the lowest point since its passage by Congress in March.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Two surveys of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters each were conducted October 12-13 and October 14-15, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Government ethics and corruption rate number three in terms of overall importance, but voters have been narrowly divided for the past several months over which party to trust more on this issue. Democrats have held small leads since February.

As for education, both parties have held very modest leads on the issue at different times for months now.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters nationwide place their trust in the hands of Republicans when it comes to the issue of taxes. Thirty-nine percent (39%) would rather the Democrats handle this issue. The GOP has held a solid lead over Democrats on this issue since early July 2009.

But most voters believe that Democrats in Congress want to raise taxes and spending, while Republicans in Congress want to cut taxes and spending.

When it comes to immigration, 45% trust Republicans, while 33% trust the Democrats more. The gap between the two parties has widened since the beginning of January as the debate over the immigration law in Arizona intensified. At the beginning of the year, voters were essentially evenly divided on which party to trust.

Voters feel more strongly than ever that the federal government is encouraging illegal immigration and that states like Arizona have the answer to the problem, but the Obama administration is challenging the Arizona law in federal court.

Republicans continue to be trusted more on national security issues and the war on terror, with 49% of voters trusting the GOP versus 39% who trust the Democrats more. When it comes the war in Afghanistan, Republicans hold a six-point advantage, 42% to 36%.

Similarly, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the war in Iraq, 43% to 37%. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

Historical Federal Workforce Tables

Executive Branch Civilian Employment Since 1940

(end-of-fiscal-year count, excluding Postal Service, in thousands)

Fiscal Year	Total Executive Branch	Department of Defense	Civilian Agencies
Fiscal Year	Total Executive Branch	Department of Defense	Total	Agriculture	HHS, Education, Social Sec. ¹	Homeland Security	Interior	Justice	Transportation	Treasury	Veterans	Other
1940	699	256	443	98	9	18	46	11	…	45	40	176
1941	1,081	556	525	91	10	20	50	15	…	52	43	244
1942	1,934	1,291	643	95	11	20	49	22	…	55	44	348
1943	2,935	2,200	735	109	11	21	43	23	…	69	53	406
1944	2,930	2,246	683	78	11	21	42	21	…	81	51	378
1945	3,370	2,635	736	82	11	20	45	19	…	84	65	409
1946	2,212	1,416	795	97	12	20	51	17	…	95	169	335
1947	1,637	859	777	88	12	20	53	17	…	82	217	288
1948	1,569	871	698	82	13	18	57	20	…	79	196	233
1949	1,573	880	694	87	12	19	59	19	…	77	195	226
1950	1,439	753	686	84	13	20	66	20	…	76	188	219
1951	1,974	1,235	738	81	16	21	65	25	…	79	183	269
1952	2,066	1,337	729	79	15	22	61	25	…	75	175	278
1953	2,026	1,332	694	78	35	22	59	23	…	71	178	226
1954	1,875	1,209	666	76	35	21	56	24	…	67	179	207
1955	1,860	1,187	673	86	40	21	54	24	…	65	178	206
1956	1,864	1,180	684	89	46	20	53	24	…	64	177	210
1957	1,869	1,161	708	96	53	20	55	24	…	65	174	222
1958	1,817	1,097	720	101	55	20	56	24	…	64	172	227
1959	1,805	1,078	727	97	59	20	55	23	…	63	171	238
1960	1,808	1,047	761	99	62	21	56	24	…	62	172	265
1961	1,825	1,042	782	103	70	20	59	25	…	67	175	265
1962	1,896	1,070	827	111	77	20	63	25	…	69	177	284
1963	1,911	1,050	861	116	81	21	73	25	…	73	173	300
1964	1,884	1,030	855	108	83	21	70	26	…	72	172	302
1965	1,901	1,034	867	113	87	21	71	27	…	74	167	307
1966	2,051	1,138	913	119	100	21	75	27	…	76	170	324
1967	2,251	1,303	949	122	106	24	77	27	52	79	173	289
1968	2,289	1,317	972	123	117	23	78	29	56	79	176	292
1969	2,301	1,342	960	125	113	21	75	30	58	79	175	283
1970	2,203	1,219	983	118	112	23	75	33	62	84	169	308
1971	2,144	1,154	989	120	115	25	72	38	66	86	180	288
1972	2,117	1,108	1,009	118	114	29	72	40	65	90	184	295
1973	2,083	1,053	1,030	113	128	29	74	43	66	90	198	289
1974	2,140	1,070	1,070	116	142	30	77	46	68	97	202	292
1975	2,149	1,042	1,107	121	147	31	80	47	69	101	213	297
1976	2,157	1,010	1,147	128	155	32	82	48	71	105	222	303
1977	2,182	1,009	1,173	132	159	32	87	48	70	107	224	313
1978	2,224	1,000	1,225	138	161	37	84	49	70	110	229	348
1979	2,161	960	1,201	128	161	40	78	48	67	102	226	352
1980	2,161	960	1,201	129	163	40	77	48	66	102	228	346
1981	2,143	984	1,159	129	162	38	76	47	54	100	232	321
1982	2,110	990	1,121	121	153	38	79	48	57	98	236	291
1983	2,157	1,026	1,131	124	152	39	80	50	57	104	239	286
1984	2,171	1,044	1,127	119	150	39	79	53	57	109	240	283
1985	2,252	1,107	1,145	122	147	40	80	55	56	110	247	286
1986	2,175	1,068	1,108	113	138	39	74	56	56	114	240	277
1987	2,232	1,090	1,142	117	132	44	74	60	57	125	250	284
1988	2,222	1,050	1,172	121	128	48	78	63	58	135	245	297
1989	2,238	1,075	1,162	122	127	49	78	66	60	126	246	289
1990	2,250	1,034	1,216	123	129	49	78	71	61	132	248	326
1991	2,243	1,013	1,230	126	135	50	82	77	64	139	256	302
1992	2,225	952	1,274	128	136	56	85	82	64	133	260	329
1993	2,157	891	1,266	124	135	56	85	82	63	127	268	326
1994	2,085	850	1,235	120	133	55	81	83	59	128	262	315
1995	2,012	802	1,210	113	132	56	76	87	58	128	264	297
1996	1,934	768	1,166	110	130	62	71	88	58	118	251	279
1997	1,872	723	1,149	107	131	64	71	93	59	112	243	270
1998	1,856	693	1,163	106	130	68	72	95	59	112	240	281
1999	1,820	666	1,155	105	130	69	73	97	58	113	219	290
2000	1,778	651	1,127	104	126	70	74	98	58	113	220	265
2001	1,792	647	1,145	109	129	73	76	99	59	117	226	258
2002	1,818	645	1,173	98	130	76	77	96	96	118	223	258
2003	1,867	636	1,231	100	131	153	72	102	58	132	226	257
2004	1,882	644	1,238	111	130	153	77	104	57	111	236	257
2005	1,872	649	1,224	108	131	147	76	105	56	108	235	258
2006	1,880	653	1,227	105	129	154	72	107	54	107	239	260
2007	1,888	651	1,237	103	129	159	72	107	54	104	254	254
2008	1,960	670	1,289	104	132	172	76	109	55	106	274	261
2009	2,094	737	1,357	104	139	180	75	113	57	109	297	283

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/ExecutiveBranchSince1940.asp

**Millions of dollars**
Assets, liabilities, and capital	Eliminations from consolidation	Wednesday Oct 6, 2010	Change since
Wednesday Sep 29, 2010	Wednesday Oct 7, 2009
Assets
Gold certificate account		11,037	0	0
Special drawing rights certificate account		5,200	0	0
Coin		2,114	+ 3	+ 124
Securities, repurchase agreements, term auction credit, and other loans		2,101,199	+ 7,113	+ 216,329
Securities held outright ¹		2,051,716	+ 7,403	+ 456,429
U.S. Treasury securities		819,072	+ 7,403	+ 49,887
Bills ²		18,423	0	0
Notes and bonds, nominal ²		752,832	+ 7,390	+ 52,364
Notes and bonds, inflation-indexed ²		42,318	0	– 2,270
Inflation compensation ³		5,499	+ 13	– 207
Federal agency debt securities ²		154,105	0	+ 20,294
Mortgage-backed securities ⁴		1,078,539	0	+ 386,248
Repurchase agreements ⁵		0	0	0
Term auction credit		0	0	– 178,379
Other loans		49,483	– 290	– 61,721
Net portfolio holdings of Commercial Paper Funding Facility LLC ⁶		0	0	– 41,059
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC ⁷		28,510	+ 40	+ 2,206
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC ⁸		15,674	– 201	+ 1,213
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III LLC ⁹		22,782	– 258	+ 2,616
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC ¹⁰		601	0	+ 601
Preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC ¹¹		26,057	+ 324	+ 26,057
Items in process of collection	(84)	463	+ 98	+ 310
Bank premises		2,222	– 7	+ 1
Central bank liquidity swaps ¹²		61	0	– 49,770
Other assets ¹³		95,313	+ 2,248	+ 11,389

Total assets	(84)	2,311,231	+ 9,358	+ 170,016

Millions of dollars
Assets, liabilities, and capital	Eliminations from consolidation	Wednesday Oct 6, 2010	Change since
Wednesday Sep 29, 2010	Wednesday Oct 7, 2009
Liabilities
Federal Reserve notes, net of F.R. Bank holdings	918,609	+ 4,849	+ 42,489
Reverse repurchase agreements ¹⁴	64,440	– 2,930	+ 1,540
Deposits	(0)	1,253,413	+ 6,593	+ 113,645
Term deposits held by depository institutions	2,119	0	+ 2,119
Other deposits held by depository institutions	1,000,014	+ 15,875	+ 33,477
U.S. Treasury, general account	49,530	– 8,299	+ 18,525
U.S. Treasury, supplementary financing account	199,962	+ 1	+ 70,006
Foreign official	1,345	– 1,066	– 540
Other	(0)	444	+ 84	– 9,940
Deferred availability cash items	(84)	2,598	+ 410	– 182
Other liabilities and accrued dividends ¹⁵	15,029	+ 91	+ 6,468
Total liabilities	(84)	2,254,089	+ 9,014	+ 163,961
Capital accounts
Capital paid in	26,687	+ 1	+ 1,798
Surplus	25,881	+ 6	+ 4,500
Other capital accounts	4,575	+ 338	– 242
Total capital	57,142	+ 344	+ 6,055

Background Articles and Videos

Marc-Faber– FedsPrinting to Create Final Crisis 8-3-2010

Quantitative easing

Marc Faber Sees Fed Introducing `Massive’ Quantitative Easing

Ron Paul: If You Care About The Poor You Have To Look At Monetary Policy

The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard

Monetary Policy, Deflation, And Quantitative Easing

“…Aren’t the excess bank reserves inflationary?

Potentially yes, but currently no. Even though banks are earning a meager 25 basis points on their reserves, that is not sufficient incentive to keep large quantities of excess reserves uninvested or unloaned. As they were in the mid-1930s, massive excess reserves are the result of banker fear and uncertainty. The banking system has been saved, but it hasn’t been made whole yet. Bankers continue to worry about reserve levels and liquidity levels and capital levels. They are willing to lend, but only very conservatively to credit-worthy borrowers. Also, much of the slowdown in bank lending comes from low demand for loans by highly qualified borrowers.

The idea that the excess reserves held on banks’ balance sheets should be “mopped up” to prevent them being used in inflationary ways later is a very dangerous idea. They are there voluntarily because bankers feel they are needed. To remove them would cause further bank retrenchment, as it did in the 1930s when the Fed decided to “mop up” the excess reserves of that time.

As the economy and confidence improves, banks will begin using their excess reserves more aggressively. At that point, the Fed will have to be very careful not to stifle that desirable activity on the one hand or let it get out of hand and become inflationary on the other hand. Since they have lots of good, two-handed economists, I think they can pull it off. ..”

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/30/monetary-policy-deflation-and-quantitative-easing/

The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard

If you work to earn money you need to watch this

Quantitative Easing

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money by increasing the excess reserves of the banking system. This policy is usually invoked when the normal methods to control the money supply have failed, i.e the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

A central bank implements QE by first crediting its own account with money it creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).^[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds, agency debt, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money, and thus hopefully induce a stimulation of the economy, by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system.

Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to sit on the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.^[1]

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.^[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.^[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone during the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, since the programme is suitable for economies where the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

Concept

Ordinarily, the central bank uses its control of interest rates, or sometimes reserve requirements, to indirectly influence the supply of money.^[1] In some situations, such as very low inflation or deflation, setting a low interest rate is not enough to maintain the level of money supply desired by the central bank, and so quantitative easing is employed to further boost the amount of money in the financial system.^[1] This is often considered a “last resort” to increase the money supply.^[4]^[5] The first step is for the bank to create more money ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) by crediting its own account. It can then use these funds to buy investments like government bonds from financial firms such as banks, insurance companies and pension funds,^[1] in a process known as “monetising the debt“.

For example, in introducing its QE programme, the Bank of England bought gilts from financial institutions, along with a smaller amount of relatively high-quality debt issued by private companies.^[6] The banks, insurance companies and pension funds can then use the money they have received for lending or even to buy back more bonds from the bank. The central bank can also lend the new money to private banks or buy assets from banks in exchange for currency.^{[citation needed]} These have the effect of depressing interest yields on government bonds and similar investments, making it cheaper for business to raise capital.^[7] Another side effect is that investors will switch to other investments, such as shares, boosting their price and thus creating the illusion of increasing wealth in the economy.^[6] QE can reduce interbank overnight interest rates, and thereby encourage banks to loan money to higher interest-paying and financially weaker bodies.

More specifically, the lending undertaken by commercial banks is subject to fractional-reserve banking: they are subject to a regulatory reserve requirement, which requires them to keep a percentage of deposits in “reserve”,^{[citation needed]}: these can only be used to settle transactions between them and the central bank.^[7] The remainder, called “excess reserves”, can (but does not have to be) be used as a basis for lending. When, under QE, a central bank buys from an institution, the institution’s bank account is credited directly and their bank gains reserves.^[6] The increase in deposits from the quantitative easing process causes an excess in reserves and private banks can then, if they wish, create even more new money out of “thin air” by increasing debt (lending) through a process known as deposit multiplication and thus increase the country’s money supply. The reserve requirement limits the amount of new money. For example a 10% reserve requirement means that for every $10,000 created by quantitative easing the total new money created is potentially $100,000. The US Federal Reserve‘s now out-of-print booklet Modern Money Mechanics explains the process.

A state must be in control of its own currency and monetary policy if it is to unilaterally employ quantitative easing. Countries in the eurozone (for example) cannot unilaterally use this policy tool, but must rely on the European Central Bank to implement it.^{[citation needed]} There may also be other policy considerations. For example, under Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union^[7] and later the Maastricht Treaty, EU member states are not allowed to finance their public deficits (debts) by simply printing the money required to fill the hole, as happened, for example, in Weimar Germany and more recently in Zimbabwe.^[1] Banks using QE, such as the Bank of England, have argued that they are increasing the supply of money not to fund government debt but to prevent deflation, and will choose the financial products they buy accordingly, for example, by buying government bonds not straight from the government, but in secondary markets.^[1]^[7]

HistoryQuantitative easing was used unsuccessfully^[8] by the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to fight domestic deflation in the early 2000s.^[9] During the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, policies announced by the US Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke to counter the effects of the crisis are a form of quantitative easing. Its balance sheet expanded dramatically by adding new assets and new liabilities without “sterilizing” these by corresponding subtractions. In the same period the United Kingdom used quantitative easing as an additional arm of its monetary policy in order to alleviate its financial crisis.^[10]^[11]^[12]

The European Central Bank (ECB) has used 12-month long-term refinancing operations (a form of quantitative easing without referring to it as such) through a process of expanding the assets that banks can use as collateral that can be posted to the ECB in return for Euros. This process has led to bonds being “structured for the ECB”^[13]. By comparison the other central banks were very restrictive in terms of the collateral they accept: the US Federal Reserve used to accept primarily treasuries (in the first half of 2009 it bought almost any relatively safe dollar-denominated securities); the Bank of England applied a large haircut.

In Japan’s case, the BOJ had been maintaining short-term interest rates at close to their minimum attainable zero values since 1999. With quantitative easing, it flooded commercial banks with excess liquidity to promote private lending, leaving them with large stocks of excess reserves, and therefore little risk of a liquidity shortage.^[14] The BOJ accomplished this by buying more government bonds than would be required to set the interest rate to zero. It also bought asset-backed securities and equities, and extended the terms of its commercial paper purchasing operation.^[15]

RisksQuantitative easing is seen as a risky strategy that could trigger higher inflation than desired or even hyperinflation if it is improperly used and too much money is created.

Quantitative easing runs the risk of going too far. An increase in money supply to a system has an inflationary effect by diluting the value of a unit of currency. People who have saved money will find it is devalued by inflation; this combined with the associated low interest rates will put people who rely on their savings in difficulty. If devaluation of a currency is seen externally to the country it can affect the international credit rating of the country which in turn can lower the likelihood of foreign investment. Like old-fashioned money printing, Zimbabwe suffered an extreme case of a process that has the same risks as quantitative easing, printing money, making its currency virtually worthless.^[1]

^…”

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

Federal Open Market Committee

“…About the FOMCThe term “monetary policy” refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy–open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.

Structure of the FOMC

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.For more detail on the FOMC and monetary policy, see section 2 of the brochure on the structure of the Federal Reserve System and chapter 2 of Purposes & Functions of the Federal Reserve System.

2010 Members of the FOMC

Members
- Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors, Chairman
- William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman
- James Bullard, St. Louis
- Elizabeth A. Duke, Board of Governors
- Thomas M. Hoenig, Kansas City
- Sandra Pianalto, Cleveland
- Sarah Bloom Raskin, Board of Governors
- Eric S. Rosengren, Boston
- Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors
- Kevin M. Warsh, Board of Governors
- Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm

FEDERAL RESERVE statistical release
H.4.1
Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and
Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks

Why Chinese Currency Manipulation Is America’s Fault by: Ian Fletcher April 15, 2010

“…Unfortunately, the token appreciation that is probably now in store won’t help very much. For one thing, Beijing has played this game before. China first started diversifying its currency reserves away from the dollar (which weakens currency manipulation) in July 2005, and from then until July 2008 allowed the yuan to rise from 8.28 to the dollar to 6.83, where it has since been held nearly steady. But this appreciation, while showcased by China, was purely nominal; after adjusting for inflation, the change was far smaller: about two percent.

How does China manipulate its currency? Mainly by preventing its exporters from using the dollars they earn as they wish. Instead, they are required to swap them for domestic currency at China’s central bank, which then “sterilizes” them by spending them on U.S. Treasury securities (and increasingly other, higher-yielding, investments) rather than U.S. goods. As a result, the price of dollars is propped up — which means the price of yuan is pushed down — by a demand for dollars which doesn’t involve buying American exports.

The amounts involved are astronomical: as of 2008, China’s accumulated dollar-denominated holdings amounted to $1.7 trillion, an astonishing 40 percent of China’s GDP. The China Currency Coalition estimated in 2005 that the yuan was undervalued by 40 percent; past scholarly estimates have ranged from 10 to 75 percent.

Why is this America’s fault? Because China’s currency is manipulated relative to our own only because we permit it, as there is no law requiring us to sell China our bonds and other assets. We could, in fact, end this manipulation at will. All we would need to do is bar China’s purchases, or just tax them to death.

This would be neither an extreme nor an unprecedented move. It is roughly what the Swiss did in 1972, when economic troubles elsewhere in the world generated an excessive flow of money seeking refuge in Swiss franc-denominated assets. This drove up the value of the franc and threatened to make Swiss manufacturing internationally uncompetitive. To prevent this, the Swiss government imposed a number of measures to dampen foreign investment demand for francs, including a ban on the sale of franc-denominated bonds, securities, and real estate to foreigners. Problem solved. (It did not even damage Switzerland’s standing as an international financial center, a key worry at the time.) …”

“…So the real underlying problem is that America doesn’t generate enough savings on its own to meet its voracious appetite for borrowing. China’s savings rate, thanks to deliberate suppression by the Chinese government of its people’s opportunities to spend what they earn, is an astonishing 50 percent. Ours was negative four percent in the last Federal Reserve report on the subject. We are—Oh, how Mao would have loved this!—decadent. …”

http://seekingalpha.com/article/198825-why-chinese-currency-manipulation-is-americas-fault

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

News Journal: Number 25, October 9, 2010: Obama Depression: 20 Months Of Unemployment Over 8% For Official U-3 Rate and Over 15% For Total U-6 Rate–Over 26 Million Americans Looking For A Full Time Job and 41.8 Million On Food Stamps!–Followed By 36 More Months Of Over 8% Official Unemployment U-3 Rate and 15% Total Unemployment U-6 Rate!

Posted on October 9, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Communications, Digital Communication, Ethics, Globalization, Issues, Law, Politics, Print Media, Public Relations, Society, Web | Tags: Balanced Budget, Christine Romer, Economic Policy, FairTax, Fiscal Policy, Food Stamps, Full Employment, Keynesian Econmics, Ludwig von Mises, Minimum Hourly Wage, Obama Depression, President Obama, Surplus Budget, Tax Policy, Unemployment |

“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

Economy Sheds 95,000 Jobs; 14.8 Million out of Work

RECORD 41.8 MILLION PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS 9-15-2010

Sept 2010 Employment Report

U.S. Recovering Jobs But Pace Has Slowed, Analyst Says

Goolsbee Sees Need to Get ‘Job Engine’ Growing Faster: Video

“Traders will look at the U6 unemployment rate…on Friday”

President Obama on September, 2010 Jobs Numbers

Ron Paul: Obama Stimulus Package Will Turn Recession Into Depression

The U.S. jobless ” recovery” continues and is getting worse.

While the official unemployment rate of 9.6% as measured by U-3 did not go up in September, the real total unemployment rate went from 16.7% in August to 17.1% in September 2010.

The official unemployment level is currently at 14,767,000 unemployed Americans and exceeds the 13 million unemployed during the worse year of the Great Depression, 1933.

The total unemployment level calculated as 17.1% of the civilian labor force of about 154,158,000 is over 26 million, twice the number of unemployed during the worse year of the Great Depression, 1933.

The Obama Depression is not over or improving but is in fact getting worse.

The Keynesian economics recipe for economic disaster of more and more stimulus spending, larger and larger budgetary deficits, financed by layer upon layer of government debt has been a big failure.

A failure made even worse by the Federal Reserves’ quantitative easing monetary policy of monetization of the debt by “printing” more and more money in exchange for the Federal Government’s debt.

Neither the fiscal policy of stimulus spending nor the monetary policy of quantitative easing will create more jobs.

Obama”s economic policies only increase the belief among consumers and business owners that the Federal Government is completely out-of-control.

Only when President Obama’s economic policies are reversed and the current regime in Congress and the President are elected out of office will you finally see job creation and low full employment rates of 2%% to 3% This will take not months but at least five years.

Dixion Says Fed Quantitative Easing Won’t Create New Jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Olz2h6ehM

The immediate result is the devaluing of the dollar

The Federal Reserves’ policy is a massive tax increase on all Americans as the purchasing power of their money declines daily.

This will only result in higher prices for all imports including gasoline and the costs of all goods and services to the extent they require imported goods and services such as petroleum.

Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke

Peter Schiff–Dollar Collaspse–Gold As A Hedge Against The Fed’s Committment To Raise Inflation

Who reappointed The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke,–President Barack Obama.

Ron Paul : We Can’t Say Cut Spending For Food Stamps But NOT For The Military Industrial Complex!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whfopF8Xj8I

All Labor and Unemployment Statistics Are From

The Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

As Of October 2010

The Numbers In Red Are For The Obama Administration

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

2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9

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 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0

2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4

2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0

2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.8	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.1	3.9	3.9	3.9	3.9
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	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.8	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.5	5.8	6.1	6.2	6.6	6.9	7.4
2009	7.7	8.2	8.6	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.8	10.1	10.0	10.0
2010	9.7	9.7	9.7	9.9	9.7	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6

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
2000	7.1	7.2	7.1	6.9	7.1	7.0	7.0	7.1	7.0	6.8	7.1	6.9
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	8.0
2007	8.3	8.1	8.0	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.5	8.4	8.4	8.5	8.8
2008	9.1	8.9	9.0	9.2	9.7	10.0	10.5	10.9	11.2	11.9	12.8	13.7
2009	14.0	15.0	15.6	15.8	16.4	16.5	16.4	16.8	17.0	17.4	17.2	17.3
2010	16.5	16.8	16.9	17.1	16.6	16.5	16.5	16.7	17.1

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
2000	5708	5858	5733	5481	5758	5651	5747	5853	5625	5534	5639	5634
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	7059	7185	7075	7122	6977	6998	7154	7097	6853	6728	6883	6784
2007	7085	6898	6725	6845	6765	6966	7113	7096	7200	7273	7284	7696
2008	7628	7435	7793	7631	8397	8560	8895	9509	9569	10172	10617	11400
2009	11919	12714	13310	13816	14518	14721	14534	14993	15159	15612	15340	15267
2010	14837	14871	15005	15260	14973	14623	14599	14860	14767

In order to reduce the U.S. official unemployment rate by .1% in a single month requires the creation of between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs per month depending upon the number of new entrants into the labor market due to population growth and the labor participation rate or those seeking employment.

The labor participation rate goes down as an economy goes into a recession and goes up as the economy grows and prospers. The labor participation rate is currently 64.7%, well below the more normal range of 66% to 67.5% .

A higher labor participation rate means more individuals are actively seeking full-time employment and more jobs need to be created each month to absorb both new entrants and re-entrants into the labor market.

This is the reason why between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs need to be created each month to reduce the unemployment rate just .1%.

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
2000	67.3	67.3	67.3	67.3	67.1	67.1	66.9	66.9	66.9	66.8	66.9	67.0
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	66.3	66.0	66.0	66.0	66.0	65.8	66.0	65.8	66.0	66.0
2008	66.2	66.0	66.1	66.0	66.2	66.1	66.0	66.1	66.0	66.0	65.8	65.8
2009	65.7	65.7	65.6	65.8	65.8	65.7	65.4	65.4	65.1	65.0	64.9	64.6
2010	64.7	64.8	64.9	65.2	65.0	64.7	64.6	64.7	64.7

It takes at between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs to employ new entrants into the labor market mostly high school and college graduates.

There are currently over 1.1 million new entrants into the labor force that have not found their first job.

Series Id: LNS13023569
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level – New Entrants
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Unemployed entrant status: New entrants

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	394	420	429	406	466	427	433	499	415	402	419	490
2001	444	396	378	457	468	467	448	485	473	481	495	515
2002	484	507	538	527	497	549	545	612	536	479	591	535
2003	599	584	630	635	630	661	669	652	686	636	593	693
2004	676	666	631	652	718	649	702	704	695	734	700	702
2005	621	753	712	764	710	650	630	626	607	638	673	633
2006	618	710	635	590	522	644	638	647	612	573	583	588
2007	628	599	614	621	536	634	599	590	668	700	661	688
2008	685	660	705	631	807	771	829	826	811	826	735	820
2009	792	1016	881	919	977	969	994	1096	1134	1114	1270	1270
2010	1235	1238	1197	1231	1206	1140	1188	1259	1187

The unemployment rate for the young, ages 16 to 19, is 26%!

The unemployment rate for the young is currently nearly double the usual unemployment rate for ages 16 to 19 of between 12% and 16% when the economy is growing.

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
2000	12.7	13.8	13.3	12.6	12.8	12.3	13.4	14.0	13.0	12.8	13.0	13.2
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	15.2	15.3	16.1	14.6	14.0	15.7	15.9	16.1	16.3	15.2	14.9	14.7
2007	14.8	14.9	14.9	15.6	15.9	16.2	15.3	16.0	16.0	15.5	16.2	16.9
2008	17.8	16.5	16.0	15.6	18.9	19.0	20.8	18.9	19.3	20.3	20.3	20.8
2009	20.9	21.8	22.0	21.8	23.2	24.3	24.5	25.7	26.1	27.6	26.8	27.1
2010	26.4	25.0	26.1	25.4	26.4	25.7	26.1	26.3	26.0

Both high school graduates and those who either dropped out or failed to graduate from high school are finding it very difficult to find their first job.

Illegal immigrants, mainly from Mexico and Latin America, of between 10 million to 20 million, has made it even more difficult for young inexperienced American citizens to find entry-level jobs.

Also the Federal minimum hourly wage law prevents many small businesses from hiring young workers.

Good Intentions 2 of 3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter Williams

Good Intentions 3 of 3 The Welfare System and Conclusions with Walter Williams

It currently takes between 100,000 and 150,000 new jobs in addition to the 100,000 to 150,000 jobs for new entrants to reduce the unemployment rate by .1%.

The civilian labor force is currently about 155 million.

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	142267(1)	142456	142434	142751	142388	142591	142278	142514	142518	142622	142962	143248
2001	143800	143701	143924	143569	143318	143357	143654	143284	143989	144086	144240	144305
2002	143883	144653	144481	144725	144938	144808	144803	145009	145552	145314	145041	145066
2003	145937(1)	146100	146022	146474	146500	147056	146485	146445	146530	146716	147000	146729
2004	146842(1)	146709	146944	146850	147065	147460	147692	147564	147415	147793	148162	148059
2005	148029(1)	148364	148391	148926	149261	149238	149432	149779	149954	150001	150065	150030
2006	150201(1)	150629	150839	150915	151085	151368	151383	151729	151650	152020	152360	152698
2007	153117(1)	152941	153093	152531	152717	153045	153039	152781	153393	153158	153767	153869
2008	154048(1)	153600	153966	153936	154420	154327	154410	154696	154590	154849	154524	154587
2009	154140(1)	154401	154164	154718	154956	154759	154351	154426	153927	153854	153720	153059
2010	153170(1)	153512	153910	154715	154393	153741	153560	154110	154158

Multiply the civilian labor force of about 155 million by .1% and the result is 155,000.

This is approximate number of jobs that need to be created to reduce the unemployment rate by .1 with no growth in the labor force.

When you add in the natural growth of the labor force by new entrants from population growth you arrive at an estimate of between 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs that need to be created each month to reduce the unemployment rate by .1%.

In a robust economic recovery the private sector should be creating 500,000 to 600,000 jobs per month.

Unfortunately, the private business sector and particularly small and medium size businesses, are not creating anywhere near 250,000 to 300,000 per month.

In September the private sector created only a net total of 75,000 new jobs. This is far short of the 250,000 to 300,000 jobs needed to reduce the U-3 official unemployment rate by just .1%.

Even if 250,000 new jobs were being created each month and the unemployment rate declined 1.2% per year and over 3 million jobs were created in a year, it would take over five years to bring the official unemployment rate ( U-3) down to under a 3% rate of unemployment or a near full employment level.

The stimulus package of over $789 billion plus billions in interest payments was supposed to keep the unemployment rate under 8% and not above 8%!

Stimulus II: A Sequel America Can’t Afford

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/white-houses-stimulus-math-doesnt-add-up-100456089.html

The stimulus package has been an abject failure of the Keynesian economists including Romer and Berstein who advised Obama that this was what was needed.

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	136559(1)	136598	136701	137270	136630	136940	136531	136662	136893	137088	137322	137614
2001	137778	137612	137783	137299	137092	136873	137071	136241	136846	136392	136238	136047
2002	135701	136438	136177	136126	136539	136415	136413	136705	137302	137008	136521	136426
2003	137417(1)	137482	137434	137633	137544	137790	137474	137549	137609	137984	138424	138411
2004	138472(1)	138542	138453	138680	138852	139174	139556	139573	139487	139732	140231	140125
2005	140245(1)	140385	140654	141254	141609	141714	142026	142434	142401	142548	142499	142752
2006	143142(1)	143444	143765	143794	144108	144370	144229	144631	144797	145292	145477	145914
2007	146032(1)	146043	146368	145686	145952	146079	145926	145685	146193	145885	146483	146173
2008	146421(1)	146165	146173	146306	146023	145768	145515	145187	145021	144677	143907	143188
2009	142221(1)	141687	140854	140902	140438	140038	139817	139433	138768	138242	138381	137792
2010	138333(1)	138641	138905	139455	139420	139119	138960	139250	139391

President Bush’s Federal income tax rate cuts of 2001 and capital gains and interest rate cuts of 2003 worked and the negative impact on the economy of the September 11, 2001 Islamic Al-Qaeda Jihadist terrorist attack was mostly minimized and avoided.

However, President Bush failed to control Federal Government spending by not vetoing the massive Government spending increases of both the Republican controlled House and Senate in 2005 and 2006 and the Democratic controlled House and Senate in 2007 and 2008.

President Obama followed the lead of President Bush and the Democratic controlled Congress by more than doubling the Federal budget deficits in 2009 and 2010.

Dan Mitchell on the Deficit

Dan Mitchell discusses Reagonomics vs. Obamanomics

The result is the Obama Depression with more than twice the number of Americans looking for a full-time job than the 13 million Americans that were unemployed in March, 1933, the worse month of the Great Depression.

President Obama is following in the footsteps of Presidents Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush by pursuing both the expansion of government with huge budgetary deficits (2009 was over $1,400 billion and 2010 is over 1,340 billion) and tax rate increases by letting the Bush tax rate cuts expire, supporting a massive cap-and-trade energy tax and imposing a mandatory health care plan on Americans that they must purchase or pay a tax penalty.

Feldstein Predicts Dollar to Weaken, Boosting Exports: Video

News Update: CBO Deficit estimates

The result is the same–massive unemployment–over 26 million seeking a full-time job and 41.8 million Americans on food stamps.

My recommendation made February 1, 2009 was to first have a six month payroll tax holiday on payroll and capital gains taxes and at the end of the six month period switch from the current Federal income tax system to the FairTax, which is a national sales consumption tax on the sale of all new goods and services.

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! Revised and Updated

The FairTax would replace all Federal personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, capital gains taxes, interest and dividend taxes, alternative minimum taxes, estate and gift taxes.

The FairTax requires the repeal the 16th Amendment that gave the Federal government the power to collect an income tax.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The FairTax is also progressive for it provides a prebate or check each month to every American to pay the sales tax on necessities of living such as food, clothing, housing, and energy (electricity and gasoline).

Had the FairTax been implemented with a six month payroll and capital gains tax holiday, the unemployment rate would have been significantly below 8% by now and the economy growing at a rate above 5%.

The FairTax: It’s Time

The recommended economic policy of cutting both Federal taxes and Federal Government spending and regulation had been tried and proved successful in the past when the United States entered the roaring twenties:

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

While the above economic policy recommendations would still work, it will never happen under the existing ruling political class.

Unfortunately, the political ruling class based in Washington, D.C., both Democrats and Republicans, vigorously opposed those proposing the FairTax.

Comprehensive tax reform is opposed by the lobbyist and special interests on K Street in Washington D.C. who benefit from the complicated Federal Income Tax.

Professional politicians of both political parties need the campaign contributions of these special interests and lobbyists to run for re-election.

The real problem is simply too much Federal Government spending.

The high levels of Federal Government spending is what is driving the need for new and higher Federal taxation, every increasing borrowing to finance the deficits, and a reckless expansionary credit and monetary policy.

The solution is to cut Federal government spending by eliminating entire Federal Departments, agencies and programs.

That is why I recommended that Federal Government spending be limited to 80% of FairTax collections with the remaining 20% used to pay down the National Debt and fund entitlement (Social Security and Medicare) unfunded liabilities.

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

This solution is anathema to the progressive radical socialist of the Democratic Party led by President Obama.

Instead President Obama went with the failed economic policies of the Keynesian economists who always advocate more and more Federal Government spending, which is precisely what the progressive radical socialists want to impose on the American people.

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

As a direct result of President Obama and the Democratic Party controlled Congress failure in cutting Federal Government spending, closing permanently many Federal Departments and agencies and ending hundreds of Federal Government programs, while proposing even more and higher taxes, more Americans are now unemployed and seeking full-time employment than any time in the history of the United States.

The number of unemployed are twice that of the Great Depression!

The U-3 official unemployment rate will remain above 8% and the U-6 total unemployment rate will remain above 15% for at least another 36 months.

By then the American people will vote President Obama out of office.

By then the American people will vote those Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives who failed to institute deep and permanent cuts to the Federal budget, a balanced or surplus budget and the FairTax.

President Obama is a progressive radical socialist ideologue.

Obama wants to grow the size and scope of the Federal Government and use coercion and government intervention in the form of higher taxes and pervasive government regulation to redistribute wealth and limit consumer sovereignty and the liberties of the American people.

Paul Ryan on how to break the capital strike

Krauthammer: “We Are Having A Capital Strike”

President Obama’s economic policies created massive economic uncertainty for consumers and businesses resulting in tens of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans.

President Obama is a regime that must be changed if there is any hope for the tens of millions of unemployed Americans to find a full-time job.

On November 2, 2010 the American people will vote the Democrats out of office who were responsible for this economic disaster by massive government intervention into the economy and expansion of the size and scope of government.

Most Americans cannot wait to vote President Obama out of office in 2012.

Mr. President, you know you are an economic illiterate.

Do the right thing Mr. President, resign for the good of the country and the American people.

Just think, Mr. President, you will have more time to play golf, smoke and be with your family.

Everbody wins.

Good-Bye and Good Luck.

“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individual’s life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Background Articles and Videos

Christina Romer explains a new report about job creation

The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

By Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein

January 9, 2009

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Christie Romer: The Only Surefire Way for Policymakers to Substantially Increase Aggregate Demand in the Short Run Is for the Government to Spend More and Tax Less

“…In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3 1⁄2 percent and employment by about 31⁄2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred. As the Council of Economic Advisers has documented in a series of reports to Congress, there is widespread agreement that the Act is broadly on track to meet these milestones…. What the Act hasn’t done is prevent unemployment from going above 8 percent, something else that Jared and I projected it would do. The reason that prediction was so far off is implicit in much of what I have been saying this afternoon. An estimate of what the economy will look like if a policy is adopted contains two components: a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy, and an estimate of the effect of the policy. As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate. But we, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.

By February 2009, before the Recovery Act was passed, unemployment was already over 8 percent; and by June, before the Recovery Act could have had much of an impact, it was 9 1⁄2 percent… our projection turned out to be wrong even before the Recovery Act had a chance to get off the ground, which is about as clear-cut evidence as one could imagine that the problem was in our assessment of the baseline, and not in the effects of the Act….

I certainly don’t regret having done the study. During the Transition, the little paper helped to build the case both internally and externally for a stimulus of unprecedented proportions. Only in retrospect does saying that our best guess was that unemployment would rise to 9 1⁄2 percent without aggressive action look rosy. At the time, it was scary as hell. It helped convince both our team and the Congress to go for as big a program as possible. And laying down a firm marker that the legislation had to save or create 3 1⁄2 million jobs helped prevent the package from shrinking greatly during Congressional negotiations….

The thing I do regret is that there is still so much unfinished business. I would give anything if unemployment really were down to 8 percent or lower…. That the economy remains as troubled as it is despite aggressive action reflects the fact that this has not been a normal recession. Just as the downturn was uncharted territory, so is its recovery. Because the recession began with interest rates at low levels, we can’t just have interest rates fall and housing, investment, and other interest-sensitive sectors come roaring back as they typically do in recoveries….”

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/christie-romer-the-only-surefire-way-for-policymakers-to-substantially-increase-aggregate-demand-in-the-short-run-is-for-the.html

Democratic Pollster: GOP Poised to Seize House and Senate

By: David A. Patten

“…Republicans are on the brink of pulling off a landslide “of potentially epic proportions” that would bring them control of both Houses of Congress and a majority of governorships, Democratic pollster and Fox News commentator Douglas Schoen says.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Schoen says he now sees several indications that matters are going from bad to worse for Democrats in this election cycle.

He points to a RealClearPolitics.com analysis that now shows Republicans picking up a net gain of nine seats in the Senate, which would deadlock the upper chamber 50 to 50. And polls show several other GOP candidates, including Carly Fiorina in California and Dino Rossi in Washington state, remain within striking distance, he says.

Schoen, a pollster for former President Bill Clinton, is co-author of the new book “Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System.”
…”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gop-polls-lead-democrats/2010/10/08/id/373121?s=al&promo_code=AF37-1

Monetization

“…Monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender. It usually refers to the printing of banknotes by central banks, but things such as gold, diamonds and emeralds, and art can also be monetized. Even intrinsically worthless items can be made into money, as long as they are difficult to make or acquire. Monetization may also refer to exchanging securities for currency, selling a possession, charging for something that used to be free or making money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable. …”

“…Monetizing debtIn many countries the government has assigned exclusive power to issue or print its national currency to independently operated central banks. For example, in the USA the independently owned and operated Federal Reserve banks do this.^[1] Such governments thereby disavow the overly convenient ‘slippery slope’ option of paying their bills by printing new currency. They must instead pay with currency already in circulation, or else finance deficits by issuing new bonds, and selling them to the public or to their central bank so as to acquire the necessary money. For the bonds to end up in the central bank it must conduct an open market purchase. This action increases the monetary base through the money creation process. This process of financing government spending is called monetizing the debt.^[2] Monetizing debt is thus a two step process where the government issues debt to finance its spending and the central bank purchases the debt from the public. The public is left with an increased supply of base money.

Effects on inflation

When government deficits are financed through this method of debt monetization the outcome is an increase in the monetary base, or the money supply. If a budget deficit persists for a substantial period of time then the monetary base will also increase, shifting the aggregate demand curve to the right leading to a rise in the price level.^[3] When governments intentionally do this, they devalue existing stockpiles of wealth of anyone who is holding assets based in that currency. It is in essence a “tax” as the overall value of their assets decrease due to a loss in spending power. This is known as “inflation tax“.

To summarize: a deficit can be the source of sustained inflation only if it is persistent rather than temporary and if the government finances it by creating money (through monetizing the debt), rather than leaving bonds in the hands of the public.^[4]

Examples

Monetizing the debt can be used as a component of quantitative easing strategies, which involve the creation of new currency by the central bank, which may be used to purchase government debt, or can be used in other ways.

However, there can be an insidious effect. As one observer noted:

When governments reach the point where they are borrowing to pay the interest on their borrowing they are coming dangerously close to running a sovereign Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes have a way of ending unhappily. To get out of the Ponzi trap, governments will have to increase tax revenues, or cut spending, or monetize the debt–or most likely do some combination of all three. ^{[5] …”}

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

Quantitative Easing

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money by increasing the excess reserves of the banking system. This policy is usually invoked when the normal methods to control the money supply have failed, i.e the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

A central bank implements QE by first crediting its own account with money it creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).^[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds, agency debt, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money, and thus hopefully induce a stimulation of the economy, by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system.

Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to sit on the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.^[1]

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.^[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.^[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone during the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, since the programme is suitable for economies where the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

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

Consumer Sovereignty

“…Consumer sovereignty is a term which is used in economics to refer to the rule or sovereignty of consumers in markets as to production of goods. It is the power of consumers to decide what gets produced. People use this term to describe the consumer as the “king,” or ruler, of the market, the one who determines what products will be produced. ^[1] Also, this term denotes the way in which a consumer ideologically chooses to buy a good or service. Furthermore, the term can be used as either a norm (as to what consumers should be permitted) or a description (as to what consumers are permitted).

In unrestricted markets, those with income or wealth are able to use their purchasing power to motivate producers as what to produce (and how much). Customers do not necessarily have to buy and, if dissatisfied, can take their business elsewhere, while the profit-seeking sellers find that they can make the greatest profit by trying to provide the best possible products for the price (or the lowest possible price for a given product). In the language of cliché, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

To most neoclassical economists, complete consumer sovereignty is an ideal rather than a reality because of the existence—or even the ubiquity—of market failure. Some economists of the Chicago school and the Austrian school see consumer sovereignty as a reality in a free market economy without interference from government or other non-market institutions, or anti-market institutions such as monopolies or cartels. That is, alleged market failures are seen as being a result of non-market forces.

The term “consumer sovereignty” was coined by William Hutt who firstly used it in his 1936 book “Economists and the Public”. …”

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

Background Articles and Videos

Christine O’Donnell analyzes 2008 Presidential Race on Fox News “Fox & Friends” program

Obama-Clinton ticket ‘on the table,’ Woodward says

By Alexander Mooney

“…The scenario – whereby Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would switch positions – has been bandied about by political observers for months, seen by some as a potentially savvy strategy to gin up excitement among what appears to be a depressed Democratic base.But it’s never been clear if the idea has been actually discussed in the White House, until now.

“President Obama needs some of the women, Latinos, retirees that she did so well with during the [2008] primaries and, so they switch jobs, not out of the question, and the other interesting question is, Hillary Clinton could run in her own right in 2016 and be younger than Ronald Reagan when he was elected president.”

Clinton will be 69 years old and three months in January 2017. President Ronald Reagan was just shy of his 70th birthday in January, 1980.

“Now you talk to Hillary Clinton or her advisers and they say ‘no, no there’s not a political consideration here,'” Woodward continued. “Of course the answer is, you point out to them that her clout around the world when she goes to Europe, Asia, anywhere is in part, not just because she’s Secretary of State or because she was married to President Clinton, that people see a potential future president in her.” …”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/05/obama-clinton-ticket-on-the-table/

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

News Journal: Number 24, October 5, 2010: President Obama’s Massive Tax Hikes Will Wreck The Economy, Destroy More Jobs and Kill The American Dream–Stop Stupidity, Spending, and Socialism!–Videos

Posted on October 5, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Digital Communication, Issues, Law, Mass Media, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Society, Television, Web | Tags: Deficit Spending, Economic Policy, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Keynes, National Debt, President Obama, Tax Hikes |

Obama vs. JFK on taxes

Richard Rahn: Double-Dip Recession Imminent, If Bush Tax Cuts Arent Renewed

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

Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?

Tax Year 2007

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$410,096	40.42
Top 5%	$160,041	60.63
Top 10%	$113,018	71.22
Top 25%	$66,532	86.59
Top 50%	$32,879	97.11
Bottom 50%	<$32,879	2.89
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Obama: Raise Taxes, Capital Gains – “For Purposes of Fairness”

Dan Mitchell discusses the Bush Tax Cuts

Dan Mitchell on Taxes

Glenn Beck Part 1 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Glenn Beck Part 2 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Glenn Beck Part 3 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Dan Mitchell–Videos

It is not the Federal Government’s money, it is the money or income of the American people.

President Obama wants to increase taxes on the top 3% of U.S. tax payers that currently pay over 50% of all taxes and create most new jobs.

By increasing taxes on the wealth and job creators–small and medium size businesses, the Federal Government is destroying jobs in the private business sector to pay for more government spending.

The Federal Government should stop spending and close down permanently entire Federal Departments and agencies.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Instead, President Obama is expanding the Federal Government while those in the private sector cannot find jobs or are losing their jobs.

Cutting spending by closing down whole departments and agencies is what needs to done–not borrowing or taxing the American people to pay a monster Federal Government.

President Obama’s economic policies have been a disaster.

Increasing taxes on the job creators when there are over 25,000,000 Americans looking for a full time jobs is simply crazy and irresponsible.

How dare President Obama do this?

He actually believes he can lie to you and you are stupid and not paying attention.

On November 2, 2010 vote all the Democrats out of office and do the same in November 2012.

Send a message to President Obama by giving the Republicans majorities in the House and Senate and in the state houses and governor offices.

BAAAMM!!—Rush Limbaugh Calls Obama a ‘Jackass’, an ‘Economic Illiterate’

Stop stupidity.

Stop spending.

Stop socialism.

Presidents Kennedy and Bush tax cuts were right.

President Obama and Keynes stimulus spending were wrong.

Free markets and small government produce economic growth, prosperity and job creation.

Free Markets and Small Government Produce Prosperity

Background Articles and Videos

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

The Wisdom of The Founding Fathers–Videos

Glenn Beck On James Madison–The Father Of The United States Constitution–Videos

Glenn Beck On Founding Father Benjamin Franklin–Videos

Glenn Beck On The History of Black Americans In The American Revolution And Civil War–Videos

Glenn Beck–A Forgotten Founding Father–George Whitefield–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Indispensable Founding Father–George Washington–Videos

The Black Founding Fathers–Videos

The Founding Mothers–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams and The First American Revolution–Videos

Glenn Beck Faith, Hope, Charity and Honor–Videos

How Many Americans Will Attend The Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C., Saturday, August 28, 2010? Answer? 1 to 3 Million!

Glenn Beck Previews The Restoring Honor Rally–Saturday, August 28, 2010–The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C—Videos

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Glenn Beck On Revolutionary Leaders–Jesus, Gandhi, King–Videos

Glenn Beck–Government Intervention In The Economy Is The Problem!–Videos

Glenn Beck’s Message And Thoughts About The Restoring Honor Rally–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 1–Economic Transformation–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 2–On Radicals Surrounding Barack Obama–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 3–Revisionist American History–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 4–Message Control–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 5–On Civil Rights and The Rights

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

News Journal: Number 23, October 4, 2010: The Progressive Radical Socialists Method of Cutting Carbon Emissions–Kill Those Who Disagree With You–No Pressure–Your Choice–The Big Lie–Video

Posted on October 4, 2010. Filed under: Advertising, Audio, Bandwagon, Communications, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Policies, Politics, Print Media, Public Relations, Radio, Society, Television, Web | Tags: Climate Change, Commercials, Global Warming, Propaganda, PSAs, Public Opinion, Terror |

10:10 mini-movie – No Pressure

No Pressure–Your Choice–The Big Lie

The global warming alarmists are fanatics that really think these public service announcements or propaganda are acceptable and humorous.

While I have a sense of humor, I found the 10:10 video ad campaign tasteless, intentionally designed to scared children and adults, and a poor attempt to shut people up that disagree with the global warming alarmists.

Corporate sponsors including SONY, are quickly distancing themselves from the videos and 10:10 campaign as complaints poured in.

Rising global carbon dioxide emissions have indeed increased from 280 parts per million to over 390 parts per million over the last three hundred years.

So what?

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, required for life on the earth, and is not a pollutant or a primary driver of climate change.

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

CO2 is a trace gas

Global Warming – Carbon Dioxide

Did the rise in CO2 cause the modern increase in temperature?

Is a warm climate good?

Bureaucratic Beginnings

The Transfer of Wealth from Developed to Developing Countries

Charles Krauthammer on the EPA regulating carbon dioxide

CO2 Regulation: The Essence of Immorality

Background Articles and Videos

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (1 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (2 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (3 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (4 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (5 of 5)

The Reset Button

U.S. Gift to Russia Lost in Translation

CO2 Rising (series), Professor Tyler Volk: 1. Where in the world is the CO2 increasing?

CO2 Rising (series), Professor Tyler Volk: 2. Does my exhaled CO2 go into a leaf I can hold?

10:10

“…10:10 is a global warming mitigation campaign calling for a 10% reduction in carbon emissions in 2010. The project aims to demonstrate public support, apply pressure to policymakers to commit to national cuts, and inspire success at the United Nations climate change negotiations.^{[citation needed]}

As of June 2010, 75,000 individuals, businesses, schools and organisations have joined the campaign and pledged to reduce their emissions by 10% in a year.^{[citation needed]}

The campaign was founded as a British campaign in September 2009 by Franny Armstrong, director of The Age of Stupid, with the aim of capturing the public imagination using individual action in a way similar to the Make Poverty History campaign.^[1] In mid-2010 the campaign went global, with campaigns launching in around 12 countries.

In October 2010, the group made headlines when a mini-movie produced for their campaign, entitled No Pressure, caused widespread outrage due to its gruesome content.^[2]^[3] Subsequently, several of 10:10’s major corporate sponsors disassociated themselves from the group and withdrew support.^{[4] …”}

^“…No Pressure

For more details on this topic, see No Pressure (film).

On Friday 1 October 2010, 10:10 released a short film in which schoolchildren and office workers are summarily and gruesomely executed for not pledging a 10% reduction in their carbon emissions to participating employers and educators.^[43] Although originally planned to be shown in cinema and television advertisements, 10:10 removed the film from their website and YouTube later on the same day following negative publicity^[44] and apologised for “miss[ing] the mark”.^[43]

10:10:10

10:10 and 350.org were jointly coordinating “a day of positive action on climate change”, on Sunday 10 October, 2010 (10.10.10). The day had been planned to include a wide range of events in a reported 180 countries, including sumo wrestlers in Japan, over 10,000 schoolchildren planting trees in Croatia and Russia, a telethon on national TV in the Netherlands and the president of the Maldives installing solar panels on his roof.^[43]^[45] However in the wake of the No Pressure controversy, 350.org disassociated themselves from 10:10, strongly condemning the film. 10:10 are no longer involved in the 10:10:10 day of action.^[46]^{[47] …”}

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:10}

Sony pulls support for 10:10 initiative over contentious promo

“…In an official release on its corporate website, Sony said that it strongly “condemned the release by 10:10, the climate change campaign group, of a video entitled ’No Pressure’ that Sony considers to be ill-conceived and tasteless”.

The move is a blow to the initiative, just five days before its centrepiece day of action on 10 October, dubbed ’10:10:10′. The campaign aim is to cut global carbon emissions by 10% each year from 2010.

The electronics firm said it believed the video risked “undermining the work of the many thousands of members of the public, schools and universities, local authorities and many businesses, of which Sony is one, who support the long-term aims of the 10:10 movement and are actively working towards the reduction of carbon emissions.”

The company insisted that the promo was released entirely without its knowledge or involvement, and violated the “thoughtful and collaborative philosophy” that it had consistently supported.

Although Sony said that it recognised that 10:10 had acted quickly to remove the video from its website and had issued a public apology, the company said it had “no other option” other than to condemn the video in “the strongest possible terms” and was “disassociating itself from 10:10 at this time.”

The film appeared on the 10:10 website, but was pulled down “within hours” of its appearance, according to the organisation. …”

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1033027/Sony-pulls-support-1010-initiative-contentious-promo/

Age of stupid – greens blow up school kids in ad to sell climate change

Chris Arnold

“…The recent 10:10 climate change campaign (founded by Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong) has scored an own goal with a disastrous video ‘No Pressure’ created by Richard Curtis (of Blackadder fame) that features exploding school kids.

The humour is puerile and may well appeal to a drunken 19 year old student but as a piece of communications it has got it very wrong. So wrong they have had to withdraw the video following thousands of complaints.

The video (they call it an ad) features a series of patronising people – a teacher and a boss – asking everyone to sign up to 10:10 (you sign up to reduce your carbon emission by 10%). The script quotes “we cut our carbon emissions by 10%, thus keeping the planet safe for everyone,” which is factually rubbish, it’ll take a lot more than 10%. The teacher then asks the kids to volunteer to do something. All but two, Phillip and Tracy, raise their hands. The two who don’t get killed in a sick and disgusting way. She blows them up leaving the other kids covered in burnt flesh and blood.

There are two other scenes featuring X-Files’ Gillian Anderson (she too gets blown up), together with Spurs players – including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola.

The message is, “No Pressure celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those who aren’t.”
It will go down as the ultimate in poor and stupid judgment (a lesson to those who try and make their own ads). The green blog, An Englishman’s Castle, called it “an eco-terrorism film”.

This is not only embarrassing for 10:10 but for their supporters, O2, Sony, Eada, National Magazines (Esquire, Cosmoplitan, Bazaar, Company), The Guardian and many other brands and organisations, not to mention many celebs. One critic has published the email address of Sony’s CEO, encouraging people to write direct.

Can’t say I’d want to be part of an organisation that advocates blowing up kids. It comes across as ‘eco-fascism’, a tag that has been put against extremist green groups. …”

“…The 10:10 campaign was founded by Franny Armstrong, director of the climate change film The Age of Stupid. In the film an archivist in the devastated world of 2055, asks the question: “Why didn’t we stop climate change when we still had the chance?” He looks back on footage of real people around the world in the years leading up to 2015 before runaway climate change took place. London is now flooded, Sydney is burning, Las Vegas has been swallowed up by desert, the Amazon rain forest has burnt up, snow has vanished from the Alps and nuclear war has laid waste to India (not sure that’s anything to do with climate change but the politics of war). It’s doom and gloom with no positive message.

The idea for 10:10 came to Franny while walking through Regent’s Park on her way to a debate with UK Climate & Energy Secretary Ed Miliband (now Labour leader and probably keeping as far away from this as possible). With her connections she managed to amass lots of celebrities and get lots of PR.
Now’s she is getting all the wrong PR.
…”

http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/arnold_on_ethical_marketing/archive/2010/10/04/age-of-stupid-greens-blow-up-school-kids-in-ad-to-sell-climate-change.aspx

350.org

“…350.org is an international environmental organization,^[1]^[2]^[3] headed by author Bill McKibben,^[4] with the goal of building a global grassroots movement to raise awareness of man-made climate change, to confront climate change denial, and to cut emissions of one of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide,^[5] ^[6] in order to slow the rate of global warming, the cause of current climate change. 350.org takes its name from the research of NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who posited in a 2007 paper that 350 parts-per-million (ppm) of CO₂ in the atmosphere is a safe ^[7] upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point.^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12] The current record level is 392.04 ppm of CO₂, an almost 40-percent increase from the pre-industrial revolution level of 278 ppm.^[13]^[14]^[15] In 1988 the Earth’s atmosphere surpassed the 350 ppm mark,^[16] while global CO₂ emissions per capita rose.^[17]^[18]

The group reports that they organised the world’s “most widespread day of political action” on Saturday October 24, 2009, reporting 5,245 actions in 181 countries.^[19]^[20]^[21]

“…The organization was founded by author Bill McKibben,^[22] an American environmentalist and writer who frequently writes about global warming, alternative energy, and the need for more localised economies. McKibben promotes the organisation, for instance by writing articles about it for many major newspapers and media, such the Los Angeles Times^[23] and The Guardian.^[24]

The organising effort drew its name from climate scientist James Hansen’s contention in winter 2008 that any atmospheric concentration of CO₂ above 350 parts per million was unsafe. James Hansen opined that “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that.”^[25]

McKibben’s first started to organize against global warming with a walk across Vermont, his home state. His “Step It Up” campaign in 2007 involved 1,400 demonstrations at famous sites across the United States. McKibben credits these activities with making Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama change their energy policies during the presidential campaign. Later, the meltdown of the polar caps pushed him into starting 350.org, based on Hansen’s 2007 book Climate Code Red.^[26]

Rajendra Pachauri, the U.N.’s “top climate scientist” and leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has come out in favor of reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350ppm.^[27]^[28]^[29] McKibben called news of Pachauri’s embrace of the 350ppm target “amazing”.^[30] Some media have indicated that Pachauri’s endorsement of the 350ppm target was a victory for 350.org’s activism.^[31]^[32]^[33]

The organisation had a lift in prominence after founder McKibben appeared on The Colbert Report television show on Monday August 17, 2009.^[34]^[35]^[36]

The organisation disseminates its message through social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.^[37]^{[38] …”}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350.org

Franny Armstrong

“…Franny Armstrong (born 3 February 1972)^[1]^[2] is a British documentary film director working for her own company, Spanner Films, and a former drummer with indie pop group The Band of Holy Joy. She is primarily known for three films: The Age of Stupid, about climate change, McLibel, about the infamous McDonald’s court case and Drowned Out, following the fight against the Narmada Dam Project. Her most recent project is the UK-wide campaign 10:10, which aims to cut 10% of the UK’s emissions during 2010, has received an unwelcome reception from the audience because of propaganda of violence against global warming skeptics. In November 2009, Armstrong was rescued by London mayor Boris Johnson from an assault by a gang of girls in north London.^[3]

“…Armstrong’s first documentary, McLibel (1997, 2005), told the story of the McDonald’s libel trial, the longest-running court action in English history. Filmed over ten years with no commission, no budget and a voluntary crew – including Ken Loach, who directed the courtroom reconstructions – it shot to notoriety when lawyers prevented its broadcast, first at BBC1 and then at Channel 4 in 1997. Eight years later – after the ‘McLibel Two’ had defeated the British government at the European Court of Human Rights – it was finally broadcast on BBC2 at 10.30pm on a Sunday, to an estimated 1 million viewers. It was well received by critics, with Time Out crediting Armstrong with “gusto and wit” in telling a story that “will satisfy both head and heart”.^[5] It was then broadcast on TV in 15 countries – including Australia, Canada and the USA – and released on DVD worldwide. McLibel was released in cinemas and DVD stores in the USA in summer 2005 and this was followed in the UK in 2006. McLibel was nominated for numerous awards, including the Grierson Documentary Award and the British Independent Film Awards. It was recently picked for the British Film Institute’s prestigious series, “Ten Documentaries which Changed the World”.

Armstrong’s second feature documentary, Drowned Out (2002), follows an Indian family who chose to stay at home and drown rather than make way for the Narmada Dam. It also sold around the world, was nominated for Best Documentary at the British Independent Film Awards 2004 and was released theatrically in America and DVD worldwide in 2006.

Without backing from the UK TV industry, Armstrong’s films have been seen by more than 56 million people^{[citation needed]}. She has been working full-time on The Age of Stupid (formerly known as Crude) since December 2004. It’s a film that warns of the catastrophic effects of climate change using a mix of factual documentary and post-apocalyptic fictional styles. It was released in the UK on March 13 2009 and had its green-carpet global premiere on September 21 2009. During the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009 it was broadcast on BBC4 in the UK and on TV in seven other countries.

In October 2010, a short film, written by Richard Curtis and Armstrong, entitled No Pressure was released by the 10:10 campaign in Britain to spread awareness of climate change. The video was subsequently taken down from the organization’s website due to very negative reception and offence taken.^[6] However, it is still available in several places, including YouTube. It depicted a series of scenes in which people were asked if they were going to participate in 10:10. Those who indicated they weren’t planning on participating were told “no pressure” and then blown up in a gory explosion at the press of a red button. ^[7] In response to questions about the message of the film, she replied, “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,”^{[8] …”}

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

Spanner Films

Franny Armstrong

“…In September 2009 Franny founded the 10:10 climate campaign which aims to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 10% during 2010 and which has amassed huge cross-societal support including Adidas, Microsoft, Spurs FC, the Royal Mail, 75,000 people, 1,500 schools, a third of local councils, the entire UK Government and the Prime Minister. 10:10 launched internationally in March 2010 and, as of July 2010, has autonomous campaigns up and running in 41 countries, where some of the key sign-ups include the French Tennis Open, the city of Oslo and L’oreal. 10:10 estimates that organisations doing 10:10 have so far cut 500,000 tonnes of C02. Franny is a Londoner born and bred. …”

http://www.spannerfilms.net/people/franny_armstrong

Background Articles and Videls

“…Edwin Jack “Eddie” Fisher (August 10, 1928 – September 22, 2010) was an American singer and entertainer, who was one of the world’s most famous and successful singers in the 1950s, selling millions of records and having his own TV show. He was married to Debbie Reynolds, Elizabeth Taylor, and Connie Stevens. His divorce from his first wife, Debbie Reynolds, to marry his best friend’s widow, Elizabeth Taylor, garnered scandalously unwelcome publicity at the time. …”

Eddie Fisher, famed 50’s pop singer, father of Carrie Fisher, dies at 82

“…Eddie Fisher, who had a pretty good talent for making hit records and an amazing talent for marrying beautiful women, died Wednesday at the age of 82.

While he began his career as a singer, he eventually became better known as the star in two of Hollywood’s great love triangles – newspaper and magazine coverage of which helped set the stage for today’s media celebrity saturation..

According to an announcement from his family yesterday, Fisher died at his Berkeley, Calif., home from complications of hip surgery.

Fisher originally made his musical mark as one of the last post-World War II “matinee idols,” handsome young singers like Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin whose manner suggested a bit of attitude.

Like many of his peers, his hit-record career didn’t survive music’s transition to rock ‘n’ roll in the mid-‘50s, though he continued as a popular stage act and television host for another three decades.

Eddie Fisher Biography

“…Eddie Fisher (born August 10, 1928) is an American singer and entertainer. He was born Edwin John Fisher in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the fourth of seven children born to Joseph Fisher and Kate Winokur, who were Russian-Jewish immigrants. His father’s surname was originally Fisch, but was anglicised to Fisher upon entry to the United States.

To his family, Fisher was always called “Sonny Boy” or “Sonny,” which may have been an allusion to a song made famous by Al Jolson. It was known at an early age that he had talent as a vocalist and he started singing in numerous amateur contests, which he usually won. He sang on the radio in high school and was later on Arthur Godfrey’s Talent Scouts, a popular contest that was broadcast over the radio before moving to television. By 1946, Fisher was crooning with the bands of Buddy Morrow and Charlie Ventura. He was heard in 1949 by Eddie Cantor at Grossinger’s Resort in the Borscht Belt. After performing on Cantor’s radio show he was an instant hit and gained nationwide exposure. He was then signed to a contract with RCA Victor.

Fisher was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1951 and sent to Texas for basic training. He served a year in Korea. The photos of him in uniform during his time in the Service did not hurt his civilian career; after his discharge he became even more popular singing in top nightclubs. He also had a variety television series, Coke Time with Eddie Fisher (NBC) (1953)-(1957), appeared on Perry Como’s show, The Chesterfield Supper Club, the George Gobel Show, and had another series, The Eddie Fisher Show (NBC) (1957)-(1959).

A pre-Rock and Roll vocalist, Fisher’s strong and melodious tenor made him a teen idol and one of the most popular singers of the 1950s. He had seventeen songs in the Top 10 on the music charts between 1950 and 1956 and thirty-five in the Top 40. …”

http://www.basicfamouspeople.com/index.php?aid=3275

Society

Flawless Airline Security on Israeli Planes

TSA: Enemy of the American People?

Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far

President Obama explains the new TSA Airport Security Screenings

Debt Clock

Economics 101 – It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes!

Deficits are Bad, but the Real Problem is Spending

Meltzer Says U.S. Economic Programs Have Been `Foolish’

Ron Paul – Dr. Allan Meltzer

No Compromise: Issa, Ryan and Cantor Will Cut Runaway Federal Spending

Eric Cantor Discusses Tax Rates, Ending Earmarks & Cutting Spending On Fox News Sunday

Rand Paul: GOP must consider military spending cuts

Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988)

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789–2015

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

The FairTax: It’s Time

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Background Articles and Videos

Keynesian Economics vs. Austrian Economics

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Historical Tables

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789–2015

High Taxes and High Budget Deficits The Hoover–Roosevelt Tax Increases of the 1930s by Veronique de Rugy, Fiscal Policy Analyst, Cato Institute

Can GOP Shrink Government Spending?

Ron Paul in San Francisco – Amazing Speech!

Republicans roll out “Pledge to America”

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Economists

Tea Party Favorite Christine O’Donnell

O’Donnell’s Internal Opposition

Vicky Hartzler: A Friend to Small Business in Congress

Rand Paul: ‘It’s a Tea Party Tidal Wave’

REPLAY: Marco Rubio acceptance speech

NIKKI HALEY (R-SC)

NIKKI HALEY (R-SC) on HANNITY GOP Gubernatorial Candidate

Rand Paul on Tea Party’s Future

Background Articles and Videos

Tea party candidates win in Fla., Ky.; lose Del.

“…List of Lincoln’s failures

Republican Governors 35

Republican Representatives 255

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

The National Debt Road Trip

The Trillion $$$ Dollar U.S. Economic Deficit Caused By Our Government

Fight Obamacare Texas

What Are True Costs And Benefits Of Illegal Immigration?

Stop Illegal Immigration

3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy

The FairTax: It’s Time

Background Articles and Videos

Editor in Chief Insights: Obama’s Job Approval Trajectory

President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency

Two-thirds of Americans believe country going off on the wrong track

Rasmussen Reports

Trust on Issues

Voters Trust Republicans More on Eight of 10 Key Issues

Executive Branch Civilian Employment Since 1940

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

High Taxes and High Budget Deficits
The Hoover–Roosevelt Tax Increases of the 1930s
by Veronique de Rugy, Fiscal Policy Analyst, Cato Institute