Someone sent me a video of this guy by the name of Dr. M Zuhdi Jasser and while the captioning was in French I found an English version below. It is a free 30 minute video, you can buy the extended version on their website. Incidentally the M in his name is for Mohamed. I started looking for more about him and found he is an activist doctor who lives in Phoenix. He is very poised, educated and well versed in the issues of radical islam. He seems to be waging a one man war against radical Islam to protect the USA. A war we should all be waging as I am not sure which is a greater threat to our country, the current progressive policies from Washington or radical Islamic extremist. He is a veteran, a Muslim and a model of what an American should be regardless of religion. There are lots of informative interview videos on this web site. He repeatedly makes the points that profiling Muslims is not racist when 99% of terror attacks are performed by radical Muslims, he expects he should get more scrutiny at the airport simply because of his name and thus his religious beliefs. It is only logical to use that information in profiling the threat to our nation. Anyway lots of interesting information here from a local Muslim doctor who wants to protect this country from progressive political correctness and radical Islamic extremist. He doesn't take any political stands that I have seen and only addresses the policies toward radical Islamic extremist.
"American Islamic Forum for Democracy"
'The Third Jihad, 32 minute intro video
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Back to the Drawing Board
Kind of interesting commentary:
"Democratic fantasies face the bracing slap of reality"
While I don't agree with the White House remedy for virtually every problem in America being more federal government programs, the data in this link is interesting. The proposed solutions are insane, but the data is what the data is. Look at the graph and notice how the jobs picture is worse than previously thought because they "revised" the data for last year. What I still don't quite understand is how they can adjust the number of jobs lost up by 800,000 in the same month they report that unemployment dropped from 10% to 9.7%. When I look at the dotted line on the graph at what the jobs lost were before the revision and the line after the revision I would think the result would be an increase in reported unemployment. "Where We Are and Where We Were" I found this posting on a Blog and it actually makes sense as an explanation, "Because the "unemployment" rate is calculated from the number of people receiving unemployment checks. When their benefits run out the system assumes they have found work and are no longer "unemployed". If everybody draws unemployment until their benefits are exhausted, the unemployment rate will be 0 % and therefore, according to the Federal Rulers, the employment rate will 100%." Another posting explains it further, "The reason the unemployment rate went down is because recipients came off the unemployment rolls and either went on welfare or became homeless!". Although it makes no sense in the real world. More examples of what happens when attorneys/politicians get hold of the media and feed us dummies our daily dose of information.
Glenn Beck is in California this week attempting to preemptively show America the California situation before we are told by the White House we have to bail them out because they are "too big to fail". The first segment of his show is about the magnitude of the federal budget relative to GDP and the deficit relative to past administrations. He uses the actual White House budget that was released a couple weeks ago, and was posted here in my posting about the magnitude of the debt, as support for his point. The first two segments are very much worth watching as he has a much better way of showing the magnitude of the deficit than my mere comparisons of the interest expense compared to tax collections.
'Beck TV show February 8, 2010"
"Democratic fantasies face the bracing slap of reality"
While I don't agree with the White House remedy for virtually every problem in America being more federal government programs, the data in this link is interesting. The proposed solutions are insane, but the data is what the data is. Look at the graph and notice how the jobs picture is worse than previously thought because they "revised" the data for last year. What I still don't quite understand is how they can adjust the number of jobs lost up by 800,000 in the same month they report that unemployment dropped from 10% to 9.7%. When I look at the dotted line on the graph at what the jobs lost were before the revision and the line after the revision I would think the result would be an increase in reported unemployment. "Where We Are and Where We Were" I found this posting on a Blog and it actually makes sense as an explanation, "Because the "unemployment" rate is calculated from the number of people receiving unemployment checks. When their benefits run out the system assumes they have found work and are no longer "unemployed". If everybody draws unemployment until their benefits are exhausted, the unemployment rate will be 0 % and therefore, according to the Federal Rulers, the employment rate will 100%." Another posting explains it further, "The reason the unemployment rate went down is because recipients came off the unemployment rolls and either went on welfare or became homeless!". Although it makes no sense in the real world. More examples of what happens when attorneys/politicians get hold of the media and feed us dummies our daily dose of information.
Glenn Beck is in California this week attempting to preemptively show America the California situation before we are told by the White House we have to bail them out because they are "too big to fail". The first segment of his show is about the magnitude of the federal budget relative to GDP and the deficit relative to past administrations. He uses the actual White House budget that was released a couple weeks ago, and was posted here in my posting about the magnitude of the debt, as support for his point. The first two segments are very much worth watching as he has a much better way of showing the magnitude of the deficit than my mere comparisons of the interest expense compared to tax collections.
'Beck TV show February 8, 2010"
Monday, February 8, 2010
Additional Links to Articles on 2011 Federal Budget and the Economy
I wrote about the projected size of federal spending a couple days ago and how it is likely that total tax receipts will not even cover the interest on the debt by 2012. This isn't pie in the sky doomsday warnings anymore, it is now a reality that is upon us and without tough unpopular decisions there is no way out. The entitlement gravy train has to end and end abruptly. The idea that America can fund the saving of the world must end too. And amazingly I often find agreement on that point from many who don't even realize they are on the entitlement gravy train that needs to end. Most of our country is on some type of gravy train or expect to be at some point. That expectation has to end in order to save the republic and there will be plenty of pain to go around to everyone. On Seeking Alpha I notice there are some who like to say our debt is not a problem and use comparisons to bankrupt European socialist economies for that justification along with statistical comparisons of populations, GDP and other data that ignores the basic tax collection versus government spending cause of debt. The point no one compares to is our US system, our US tax collections and structure and our US spending relative to US revenues. Here are some other links to information I found on Seeking Alpha. I didn't post the any articles that justified our positions with comparisons to European economies as I don't give them much credibility. Their only purpose is amusement.
Seeking Alpha: Obama's Budget Seriously Underestimates Deficit
"Race to Ruin: U.S. vs. PIIGS"
"Three Graphs Illustrating Current Household and Government Spending and Saving Rates"
"Coordinated FX Intervention: Has the Time Come to Consider It?"
"Economic Recovery and the Tax-Fueled Exodus"
"Federal Budget: What Amount Is Economically Sensible as Well as Fiscally Responsible?"
"Has the World Lost Its Appetite for U.S. Treasurys?"
Seeking Alpha: Obama's Budget Seriously Underestimates Deficit
"Race to Ruin: U.S. vs. PIIGS"
"Three Graphs Illustrating Current Household and Government Spending and Saving Rates"
"Coordinated FX Intervention: Has the Time Come to Consider It?"
"Economic Recovery and the Tax-Fueled Exodus"
"Federal Budget: What Amount Is Economically Sensible as Well as Fiscally Responsible?"
"Has the World Lost Its Appetite for U.S. Treasurys?"
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Huffington and Krugman Agree with Glenn Beck
Last week on ABC's Sunday morning news show called This Week the guests on the round table were George Will, Ariana Huffington, Paul Krugman and the Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. Ariana took a couple shots at Ailes over Glen Beck during the show but she was pretty much out of her league in that battle. After the FOX CEO didn't go to the green room, where they continue the round table conversation, it gave Huffington and Paul Krugman the perfect chance to attack both FOX news and Glenn with no one to defend against their stupidity. George Will did a pretty good job but he is so far over their head they probably didn't even understand it and thus went on to talk to each other. That is when it gets really interesting at about the 4 minute mark. After bashing Glenn, Krugman disagrees with George Will's statement that the country will survive in spite of the commentary on cable news. He says the threat to survival comes from all the misinformation the public is being given. Sounds like he agrees with Glenn the only thing they would have to debate is the source. But excuse me, even if Fox news is number one on cable news they are a very small portion of what the public sees and he then says the country isn't going to survive because of the misinformation the public is being given after bashing fox news like Fox is the only place people have to get their news. Anyway, he seems to agree with Glenn that the country may not survive without significant change and fast. Then Ariana says the problem with the country is the lack of character among our elected officials starting with our president. Wow, sounds like Glenn Beck. Then Krugman bumbles around and finally says everyone knew what Reagan stood for and people don't know what Obama stands for. Sounds like if they watched more Glenn Beck rather than bashing Glenn Beck they may start to figure out what Obama stands for and actually agree with Glenn. Wonder if they forgot the cameras were still rolling during this conversation.
http://abcnews.go.com/
Then Ariana proceeds to continue her attacks on Glenn using CNN as her next platform in which she defends Keith Olbermann's attacks on Scott Brown as being factual while saying Beck has no facts. She obviously doesn't watch either one. Olbermann's so called facts are at best inflated exaggerations taken out of context and more often lies with an obvious agenda. When Glenn Beck makes statements that seem outrageous he shows video and audio so the viewer can decide for themselves, or research further to determine for themselves, if the facts support the statements. Glenn actually encourages his viewers to research and confirm what he says. Then Ariana said Olbermann apologized however the initial apology was when he apologized for missing the word sexist in the attack. Only after Jon Stewart, a fellow MSNBC liberal comedian, called him out as being over the top in a comedy skit did he actually make a weak attempt at a real apology. .
"Hewitt vs. Huffington: Does Glenn Beck Go Too Far?"
Olbermann Article with Transcripts
Original Olbermann Attacks with MSNBC version of facts
Original Apology for Missing the Word Sexist with Continued Attack
Olbermann Finally Appoligizes after Jon Stewart Calls Him on Comments
http://abcnews.go.com/
Then Ariana proceeds to continue her attacks on Glenn using CNN as her next platform in which she defends Keith Olbermann's attacks on Scott Brown as being factual while saying Beck has no facts. She obviously doesn't watch either one. Olbermann's so called facts are at best inflated exaggerations taken out of context and more often lies with an obvious agenda. When Glenn Beck makes statements that seem outrageous he shows video and audio so the viewer can decide for themselves, or research further to determine for themselves, if the facts support the statements. Glenn actually encourages his viewers to research and confirm what he says. Then Ariana said Olbermann apologized however the initial apology was when he apologized for missing the word sexist in the attack. Only after Jon Stewart, a fellow MSNBC liberal comedian, called him out as being over the top in a comedy skit did he actually make a weak attempt at a real apology. .
"Hewitt vs. Huffington: Does Glenn Beck Go Too Far?"
Olbermann Article with Transcripts
Original Olbermann Attacks with MSNBC version of facts
Original Apology for Missing the Word Sexist with Continued Attack
Olbermann Finally Appoligizes after Jon Stewart Calls Him on Comments
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Think About the Magnitude of the Federal Debt
I have been reviewing the 2011 US Budget compared to history. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf I notice the federal debt as a percentage of GDP will be over 100% by the end of Obama's first term. Federal debt at the end of fiscal 2012 is expected to be $16,312,026,000,000 compared to the 2009 balance of $11,853,142,000,000 the most recent year for which actual data is available. The assumptions underlying this budget make the actual results likely to be significantly worse.
In its budget, the administration predicted that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will shrink by 1.2 percent this year but will grow by a solid 3.2 percent in 2010. That growth would be followed by even stronger increases of 4 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013.
By contrast, the consensus of forecasters surveyed by Blue Chip Economic Indicators in February predicted that the GDP will fall by a larger 1.9 percent this year and then increase at weaker rates of 2.1 percent in 2010, 2.9 percent in 2011 and 2012 and 2.8 percent in 2013.
From Page 35 the total personal income tax collections in 2012 are projected to be $1,326,045,000,000 compared to 2009 collections of $915,308,000,000 an increase of 45% over the most recent actual data. The corporate tax collections are projected to be $366,361,000,000. compared to 2009 of $138,229,000,000 an increase of 165%. As you can see, in a forecasting model you can get very detached from any possible reality very quickly which is why I have always said I can make a budget say anything you want. It is making the reality match the budget that is difficult. Now, I am not aware of the underlying assumptions in the increased tax collections however,we know that Obama hates corporations and anyone who makes more than $250,000 and thus the increases projected may just be increased rates on the least desirable members of society. That being corporations and rich people. Or it could be we are all facing increased taxes of some sort but we can hope that the big increases in corporate collections will be absorbed and not passed on to the consumer. Uh huh and what other fairy tales do you believe in? It seems that in the end, there is only one taxpayer and that is the citizen who consumes products or services without the motivation to pass them on to another at a profit. Woops, there was another very bad word "profit". Other than that everyone else is a conduit of products and services intended for the consumer. Thus if you buy that idea then the increases will be born by consumers one way or the other.
Moving on to page 59 there is something in the budget called net interest which in 2009 is $186,902,000,000 as compared to a 2012 estimate of $342,857,000,000 an increase of 83%. As a percentage of total debt, the net interest cost on the 2009 budget was 1.58% and in 2012 is projected to be 2.1%. This is the average interest rate the federal government is paying on the national debt.
So what am I driving at here? Well, we have had some artificially low interest rates the past year or two while the fed has tried to prop up this financial system and the government has been a primary beneficiary of this. During the past 18 months business has been shut out of the debt markets and all debt has been available to the US government at rates that have approached zero. At some point business will theoretically be able to borrow money again and compete with government for what should be a limited amount of capital and the rates will increase dramatically from today. With the rosy underlying assumptions in this budget, I would think that by 2012, the end of Obama's first and hopefully only term, the rates would increase substantially if things are as much better as he says they will be. So lets assume that the only flaw in this budget is the rate of interest on the national debt. And for argument sake lets guess the rate at that time would be 8% which I think is conservatively possible whether the economy is better or not due to the fact that at some point the fed has to stop monetizing the debt and other sources will dry up due to a down grade of the US Government as a borrower. This according to Moodys on February 3, 2010 " The credit ratings agency cautioned that if the US were to grow at slower pace levels than expected, the largest economy in the world’s already-extended finances could be over-stretched, in turn damaging its AAA credit rating." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7153180/US-credit-rating-at-risk-Moodys-warns.html So in any case the rates have to increase whether the economy is better or not. If the 2012 net interest was 8% then our total interest that year would be $1,304,962,080,000 which is almost exactly the amount of total personal income tax collections projected for 2012 of $1,326,045,000,000. A number that is 45% higher than actual 2009 receipts. And if the economy didn't improve or taxes increase and total combined corporate and personal tax collections remained at their 2009 levels of $1,053,537,000,000 (915,308,000,000 + 138,229,000,000) then the total combined personal and corporate tax collections would cover only 81% of the interest on the debt. At our current spending rate and tax rates, in two years the total income tax collections more than likely will not even cover the interest on the debt. And that seems to me like the the entire government basically has to run on borrowed money at that time. Tell me how that works.
In its budget, the administration predicted that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will shrink by 1.2 percent this year but will grow by a solid 3.2 percent in 2010. That growth would be followed by even stronger increases of 4 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013.
By contrast, the consensus of forecasters surveyed by Blue Chip Economic Indicators in February predicted that the GDP will fall by a larger 1.9 percent this year and then increase at weaker rates of 2.1 percent in 2010, 2.9 percent in 2011 and 2012 and 2.8 percent in 2013.
From Page 35 the total personal income tax collections in 2012 are projected to be $1,326,045,000,000 compared to 2009 collections of $915,308,000,000 an increase of 45% over the most recent actual data. The corporate tax collections are projected to be $366,361,000,000. compared to 2009 of $138,229,000,000 an increase of 165%. As you can see, in a forecasting model you can get very detached from any possible reality very quickly which is why I have always said I can make a budget say anything you want. It is making the reality match the budget that is difficult. Now, I am not aware of the underlying assumptions in the increased tax collections however,we know that Obama hates corporations and anyone who makes more than $250,000 and thus the increases projected may just be increased rates on the least desirable members of society. That being corporations and rich people. Or it could be we are all facing increased taxes of some sort but we can hope that the big increases in corporate collections will be absorbed and not passed on to the consumer. Uh huh and what other fairy tales do you believe in? It seems that in the end, there is only one taxpayer and that is the citizen who consumes products or services without the motivation to pass them on to another at a profit. Woops, there was another very bad word "profit". Other than that everyone else is a conduit of products and services intended for the consumer. Thus if you buy that idea then the increases will be born by consumers one way or the other.
Moving on to page 59 there is something in the budget called net interest which in 2009 is $186,902,000,000 as compared to a 2012 estimate of $342,857,000,000 an increase of 83%. As a percentage of total debt, the net interest cost on the 2009 budget was 1.58% and in 2012 is projected to be 2.1%. This is the average interest rate the federal government is paying on the national debt.
So what am I driving at here? Well, we have had some artificially low interest rates the past year or two while the fed has tried to prop up this financial system and the government has been a primary beneficiary of this. During the past 18 months business has been shut out of the debt markets and all debt has been available to the US government at rates that have approached zero. At some point business will theoretically be able to borrow money again and compete with government for what should be a limited amount of capital and the rates will increase dramatically from today. With the rosy underlying assumptions in this budget, I would think that by 2012, the end of Obama's first and hopefully only term, the rates would increase substantially if things are as much better as he says they will be. So lets assume that the only flaw in this budget is the rate of interest on the national debt. And for argument sake lets guess the rate at that time would be 8% which I think is conservatively possible whether the economy is better or not due to the fact that at some point the fed has to stop monetizing the debt and other sources will dry up due to a down grade of the US Government as a borrower. This according to Moodys on February 3, 2010 " The credit ratings agency cautioned that if the US were to grow at slower pace levels than expected, the largest economy in the world’s already-extended finances could be over-stretched, in turn damaging its AAA credit rating." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7153180/US-credit-rating-at-risk-Moodys-warns.html So in any case the rates have to increase whether the economy is better or not. If the 2012 net interest was 8% then our total interest that year would be $1,304,962,080,000 which is almost exactly the amount of total personal income tax collections projected for 2012 of $1,326,045,000,000. A number that is 45% higher than actual 2009 receipts. And if the economy didn't improve or taxes increase and total combined corporate and personal tax collections remained at their 2009 levels of $1,053,537,000,000 (915,308,000,000 + 138,229,000,000) then the total combined personal and corporate tax collections would cover only 81% of the interest on the debt. At our current spending rate and tax rates, in two years the total income tax collections more than likely will not even cover the interest on the debt. And that seems to me like the the entire government basically has to run on borrowed money at that time. Tell me how that works.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Tea Party Movement Going to Have Hard Time Getting Any Coverage
The mainstream media at first made the Tea Party Movement out to be a bunch of right wing radicals and now they are beginning to realize that is not the case but they don't know how to handle them. The Tea Party is not about the Party it is about the Country, Constitution and the individual serving the people rather than the party through the government ruling the people. The media doesn't know how to handle a group that has no official leaders but is truly grass roots, that has founding principals and core values but no official platform. They have most recently tried to make them out to be the right wing of the republican party as once again the media doesn't understand country first and forget the parties. Both parties have been for expanding government in the interest of political power and have forgotten the values under which this country was founded. The Tea Party is conservative and small government minded. I don't have a lot of confidence that the main stream media is going to ever get it and if they don't then the movement is going to have to rely on the internet and cable to get out the message as they are being silenced by major media although the message is one supported by the public as evidenced by recent polls indicating they are more trusted than either political party. This, in spite of the negative coverage by the liberal media. Note that the Tea Party has a higher favorable and a significantly lower negative rating than either political party in this poll.
WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans
Note how the visit by Lech Walesa was handled by the Chicago media relative to the Tea Party when he actually endorsed their candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtU-3i4k4Xk&feature=player_embedded
Core Values
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans
Note how the visit by Lech Walesa was handled by the Chicago media relative to the Tea Party when he actually endorsed their candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtU-3i4k4Xk&feature=player_embedded
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.Core Values
- Fiscal Responsibility
- Constitutionally Limited Government
- Free Markets
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Lucky for the country, as was the case 250 years ago, we have a group of people who are willing to stand up against the government and attempt to retain the individual freedoms that were won in the founding of this country. There are people who are not afraid of individual responsibility over government nanny states. Where progressives would decide what is best for uneducated masses and then force that decision on them. But then as Obama said in the State of the Union as well on various talk shows, it is a complicated issue and he just didn't explain it well enough (Translation: I am Harvard educated and you dumb people don't know what is good for you unless I tell you).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)