Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(388)
-
▼
February
(22)
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, February 28, 2013
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
- Barker's Ramblings
- Pat Buchanan (and yours truly) Opine on What the S...
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, February 25, 2013
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Feb. 23 & 24, 2013
- The Wisdom of Patrick J. Buchanan
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, February 21, 2013
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, February 18, 2013
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, February 14, 2013
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, February 13, 2013
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, February 11, 2013
- I... Want... Them... Dead...!!!
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, February 8, 2013
- Censor the Truth...? Or Just Ignore It...?
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, February 7, 2013
- Just a Quick Note...
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Feb. 2 & 3, 2013
- And We're Back! Dow 14,000 Fuels a New Wealth Boom!
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, February 1, 2013
-
▼
February
(22)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
12 comments:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100426559
The new year started off with an old story: Employment grew again in January but not at a pace able to lower the jobless rate.
* FOLKS... EMPLOYMENT IS SUPPOSED TO RISE WITH A RISING WORKING AGE POPULATION... (*SMIRK*)... WHEN THE MSM WRITES "BUT NOT AT A PACE" WHAT THEY'RE DANCING AROUND IS THAT WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS, NOT FORWARDS!
Economists were looking for 160,000 net new jobs created with the unemployment rate holding steady at 7.8%.
* BUT INSTEAD... (KEEP READING...)
Non-farm payrolls rose 157,000 for the first month of 2013 while the unemployment rate edged higher to 7.9%...
* OOPS... (*SMIRK*)
Traders reacted positively to the report, providing a healthy gain at the market open.
(*JUST THROWING MY HANDS UP IN THE AIR*)
For the first time in nearly two years, the average duration of unemployment made a significant move lower. That number fell to 35.3 weeks, its lowest since January 2011.
* IT'S... LOWEST... NUMBER... SINCE... (*PAUSE*)... JANUARY 2011...?!?!
* FORGIVE ME IF I DON'T THROW A PARTY! (*GUFFAW*)
However, a separate unemployment measure that also takes into account those who have quit looking for jobs as well as those working part-time for economic reasons remained unchanged at 14.4%.
(*SMIRK*)
* FOLKS... REMEMBER... THIS IS CNBC REPORTING; THE SPIN IS GONNA BE PRO-OBAMA. (*SHRUG*) READ THE FULL ARTICLE AS WRITTEN AND YOU'LL SEE EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN!
Though the report showed total net job gains, the actual number of Americans in the workforce was little changed, rising just 17,000.
* AND I'M GUESSING THE WORKING AGE POPULATION INCREASED BY MORE THAN 17,000... SO... (*SNICKER*)
The labor force participation rate, considered a key metric in determining optimism among job seekers, was unchanged near 30-year lows at 63.6%.
* FOLKS... OBAMA HAS BROKEN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. YEAH... BUSH DAMAGED IT. BUT THE BUSH YEARS WITH A RINO CONGRESS WERE THE WONDER YEARS COMPARED TO 2007 THRU TODAY. YOU KNOW IT - EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FACE IT.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/01/85-million-americans-left-labor-force-obamas-first-term#ixzz2Jehi6Wet
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released jobs numbers for January Friday showing that non-farm payroll employment increased by 157,000 and the unemployment rate rose to 7.9%. Lost in these headline numbers was another rise in the number of people not in the labor force.
* I'M MAKING THIS ONE A NEWSBITE SIMPLY TO POUND THE POINT (MADE IN THE PREVIOUS NEWSBITE) HOME...
This number now stands at a staggering 89 million, up from 80.5 million when President Obama took office.
* YEP... THAT'S THE PROPER CONTEXT, FOLKS!
This means that there are currently 8.5 million more Americans not in the labor force than just four years ago.
* UMM-HMM...
Forget all the other numbers.
* YEP...
This continued explosion of people not in the labor force should be tremendously concerning as it represents an obstacle for the government to ever balance the budget without drastically raising taxes on those still working.
* OH... AND LET'S NOT FORGET THE STAGGERING INCREASES TO THE FOOD STAMP ROLLS... TO THE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ROLLS... AND NOW (AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED) OBAMA IS DOING EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO SEE THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS BECOME "LEGALIZED" AND THUS ELIGIBLE FOR DIRECT WELFARE.
* FOLKS... I'M NOT TALKING OUT OF MY ASS HERE! IT'S ALL IN THE NEWSBITES... JUST BROWSE...!!!
* OBAMA HAS "BROKEN" AMERICA - ON PURPOSE!
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/169000-americans-drop-out-labor-force-january-unemployment-ticks
The number of Americans not in the labor force grew by 169,000 in January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest jobs report.
* NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE...! NOT...! NOT...!!!
* FOLKS... WHAT CAN I TELL YA...? THESE NUMBERS BEAR REPEATING! THESE NUMBERS BEAR HIGHLIGHTING! YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AS OPPOSED TO THE SPIN THE MSM PUTS ON THEIR REPORTING!
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3%), adult women (7.3%), teenagers (23.4%), whites (7.0%), blacks (13.8%), and Hispanics (9.7%) showed little or no change in January. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.5% (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/us-embassy-bombing-in-turkey-was-eighth-embassy-attack-during-secretary-of-state-clintons-reign/
* RE: THE SUICIDE BOMBING IN FRONT OF OUR EMBASSY TO TURKEY:
Today’s attack marked the final U.S. embassy attack under the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reign at the State Department. (Her last day as Secretary of State is today.)
* WELL... LET'S HOPE SO... IT AIN'T MIDNIGHT YET!
(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
* THE ARTICLE I PROVIDE THE LINK TO HIGHLIGHTS THE EIGHT U.S. EMBASSY/CONSULATE ATTACKS WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING CLINTON'S TENURE AS SECSTATE.
* FOUR-PARTER... (Part 1 of 4)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578217720567917856.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
As the federal government moves forward to implement ObamaCare, the Department of Health and Human Services is slated to spend millions of dollars promoting the unpopular legislation.
In the face of this publicity blitz, it is worth remembering that the law was originally sold largely on four grounds — all of which have become increasingly implausible.
1) Lower health-care costs.
One key talking point for ObamaCare was that it would reduce the cost of insurance, especially for non-group insurance. The president, citing the work of several health-policy experts, claimed that improved care coordination, investments in information technology, and more efficient marketing through exchanges would save the typical family $2,500 per year.
That was then.
Now, even advocates for the law acknowledge that premiums are going up.
In analyses conducted for the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado, Jonathan Gruber of MIT forecasts that premiums in the non-group market will rise by 19% to 30% due to the law. Other estimates are even higher. The actuarial firm Milliman predicts that non-group premiums in Ohio will rise by 55% - 85%. Maine, Oregon and Nevada have sponsored their own studies, all of which reach essentially the same conclusion.
Some champions of the law argue that this misses the point, because once the law's new subsidies are taken into account, the net price of insurance will be lower. This argument is misleading. It fails to consider that the money for the subsidies has to come from somewhere. Although debt-financed transfer payments may make insurance look cheaper, they do not change its true social cost.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 4)
2) Smaller deficits.
Increases in the estimated impact of the law on private insurance premiums, along with increases in the estimated cost of health care more generally, have led the CBO to increase its estimate of the budget cost of the law's coverage expansion.
(*SMIRK*)
In 2010, CBO estimated the cost per year of expanding coverage at $154 billion; by 2012, the estimated cost grew to $186 billion. Yet CBO still scores the law as reducing the deficit.
(*SMIRK*)
How can this be?
The positive budget score turns on the fact that the estimated revenues to pay for the law have risen along with its costs. The single largest source of these revenues? Money taken from Medicare in the form of lower Medicare payment rates, mostly in the law's out-years. Since the law's passage, however, Congress and the president have undone various scheduled Medicare cuts — including some prescribed by the law itself.
(*SMIRK*)
* FOLKS... I DON'T "SMIRK" WITH JOY. NO. I "SMIRK" WITH DISGUST. DISGUST THAT ANYONE WITH AN IQ ABOVE 50 COULD HAVE EVER POSSIBLY BELIEVED ANY OF THE CRAP OBAMA (WITH THE HELP OF THE MSM) WAS SELLING!
* FOLKS... IT'LL NEVER... NEVER, EVER, EVER (AS TAYLOR SWIFT WOULD SAY)... BE CLEAR TO ME WHY SO MANY OF MY FELLOW CITIZENS ARE QUITE HAPPY BEING LIED TO.
Put aside the absurdity that savings from Medicare — the country's largest unfunded liability — can be used to finance a new entitlement. The argument that health reform decreases the deficit is even worse. It depends on Congress and the president not only imposing Medicare cuts that they have proven unwilling to make but also imposing cuts that they have already specifically undone, most notably to Medicare Advantage, a program that helps millions of seniors pay for private health plans.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONTINUING... (Part 3 of 4)
3) Preservation of existing insurance.
After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of health reform in June 2012, President Obama said, "If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your insurance." This theme ran throughout the selling of ObamaCare: People who have insurance would not have their current arrangements disrupted.
This claim is obviously false.
Indeed, disruption of people's existing insurance is one of the law's stated goals.
On one hand, the law seeks to increase the generosity of policies that it deems too stingy, by limiting deductibles and mandating coverage that the secretary of Health and Human Services thinks is "essential," whether or not the policyholder can afford it. On the other hand, the law seeks to reduce the generosity of policies that it deems too extravagant, by imposing the "Cadillac tax" on costly insurance plans.
Employer-sponsored insurance has already begun to change. According to the annual Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey, the share of workers in high-deductible plans rose to 19% in 2012 from 13% in 2010.
* WE SHOULD ALL BE ON HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLANS! CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE ONLY ALWAYS WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE RIGHT ANSWER! THE OBAMITES HAVE ONLY MADE EVERYTHING WORSE...!!!
One of the law's unintended consequences is that some employers will drop coverage in response to new regulations and the availability of subsidized insurance in the new exchanges. How many is anybody's guess. In 2010, CBO estimated that employer-sponsored coverage would decline by three million people in 2019; by 2012, CBO's estimate had doubled to six million.
* ...DOUBLED...
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 4 of4)
4) Increased productivity.
In 2009, the president's Council of Economic Advisers concluded that health reform would reduce unemployment, raise labor supply, and improve the functioning of labor markets. According to its reasoning, expanding insurance coverage would reduce absenteeism, disability and mortality, thereby encouraging and enabling work.
This reasoning is flawed.
The evidence that a broad coverage expansion would improve health is questionable. Some studies have shown that targeted coverage can improve the health of certain groups. But according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, "evidence is lacking that health insurance improves the health of non-elderly adults." More recent work by Richard Kronick, a health-policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton, concludes "there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the U.S."
The White House economic analysis also fails to consider the adverse consequences of income-based subsidies on incentives. The support provided by both the Medicaid expansion and the new exchanges phases out as a family's income rises. But, as I and others have pointed out in these pages, income phase-outs create work disincentives like taxes do, because they reduce the net rewards to work. Further, the law imposes taxes on employers who fail to provide sufficiently generous insurance, with exceptions for part-time workers and small firms. On net, it is hard to see how health reform will make labor markets function better.
(*SIGH*)
Some believe that expanding insurance coverage is a moral imperative regardless of its cost. Most supporters of the law, however, use more nuanced arguments that depend on assumptions that are increasingly impossible to defend. If we are ever to have an honest debate about entitlement spending, we will need to distinguish these positions from one another — and see them for what they really are, rather than what we wish they would be.
* FAGETABOUT IT! THE SHEEPLE DON'T WANT THE TRUTH. THEY WANNA ROOT FOR "THEIR" TEAM AND NOT BE BOTHERED WITH "DETAILS."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/31/income-tax-code/1881545/
If you're getting ready to file your income tax return, you should be interested to know that what you're doing started 100 years ago. But what a difference that century has made! Examples:
When Congress passed the income tax law in 1913, a couple making over $4,000 in taxable income after all deductions was subject to a 1% tax rate.
* AND RIGHT THERE STARTED THE PROBLEM. WE'RE EACH INDIVIDUALS. WE VOTE AS INDIVIDUALS. MALES REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE AS INDIVIDUALS. WE GET CALLED FOR JURY DUTY AS INDIVIDUALS. (*SHRUG*) YOU GET THE POINT. THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX SHOULD A RESPONSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS - OF ALL INDIVIDUALS. VIA THE FIRST INCOME TAX LEGISLATION CONGRESS LAID DOWN THE LEGACY OF CLASS WARFARE WHICH HAS PERSISTED AND ONLY GOTTEN WORSE SINCE.
With inflation that $4,000 then is equal to about $93,700 now. But the tax rate now is 25% or more for those in the $100,000-plus salary range.
Taxing income may be one of the fairest ways for the government to raise money to pay its bills. But the tax payments really need to more properly reflect income and expenses.
* NO. THAT'S THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.
Today's tax code does that badly. It's 73,954 pages long and filled with giveaways to groups that have enough political punch to get them.
* BUT APPRENTLY THE AUTHOR WANTS TO JUST TINKER IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. THE PROBLEM IS THE TINKERING ITSELF!
There's lots of talk in Washington now about tackling that problem this year by simplifying the code for the first time since 1986. Good. But simplification doesn't necessarily equal fairness.
College, for instance, has gotten so expensive that many parents — particularly those with more than one child — can't afford it.
* AND THIS HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUALLY FINANCING AN INSTITUTION MEANT TO DO WHAT A COLLEGE DID A MERE 60 YEARS AGO.
Their kids can get loans, but then they're left with big debts that slow down their start in life. That's not good for them, and it's not good for the USA.
* AGREED. BUT THE LOANS - AND GRANTS - ARE THE FODDER FOR THE EVER-INCREASING COST OF ATTENDING COLLEGE!
The tax code needs to account for expenses like those.
* WHAT A MORON! NO... CONSUMERS NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR EXPENSES LIKE THIS AND MAKE THEIR CHOICES ACCORDINGLY AND LET THE MARKET WORK AS IT DOES EVERYWHERE IT'S TRIED!
It also needs to help those who are trying to help themselves, whether they're trying to compete for job and salary gains or to start a new business.
* NO...! IT'S ALL THIS "HELP" THAT HAS LED US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY - PAYING MORE AND GETTING LESS WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUAL EDUCATION!
If we look back at the 100 years since the income tax arrived, we're more likely to come up with the right formula for the future. But it's important that our goal is to help the average American to compete with his or her peers.
* NO! THAT'S SOCIAL ENGINEERING! THE ONLY LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR TAXES IS TO FUND NECESSARY GOVERNMENT! (THE KEY WORD THERE BEING "NECESSARY!)
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2013/01/31/kept-conservatives-prominent-right-wingers-who-sound-very-liberal/
Have you ever noticed how many of the most prominent "conservative" voices in America sound more like liberals?
They are what I like to call "kept cons." They are "kept" by liberals in that kept cons generally work for liberal institutions and seem to fill the role of token conservative; they write conservative columns for national liberal newspapers or appear as conservative hosts or commentators on CNN or MSNBC or CNBC; but they don’t sound all that conservative.
* HA! THEY ALSO APPEAR OVER AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, NATIONAL REVIEW, AND FOX NEWS!
You can spot them slamming Sarah Palin or tamping down on the Tea Party.
* LIKE I WAS SAYIN'...
Their usual message is always something like, “I’m a conservative but these other people, these gun owners/southerners/TEA Partiers/Tax Cutters/Randians/Supply-siders/Pro-lifers/Climate Change Deniers/Libertarians/Gun Nuts/ Gold Bugs, etc., are beyond the pale.
(*NOD*)
The kept conservative’s announced job is to represent the conservative point of view, but their real job is to give the illusion of balance without really challenging any of the core tenets of liberalism. They spend lots of time "reinventing" the Republican Party, and the new invention is always the same: more liberal. They live among liberals, their friends are liberals, and, of course, they are paid by liberals.
They don’t actually have to work for the New York Times Company or NBC Universal. Some of these kept cons work for think tanks funded by conservatives, when they can’t get government work. They might be employed by the American Enterprise Institute where they can collect steady paychecks between gigs working for government, or for campaigns for people who want to run governments, or running lobbying and public relations firms when the GOP is not in power.
(*SIGH*) (*NOD*)
They raise money from across the U.S. on the grounds that they will represent heartland values in the corrupt seat of political power. But, nevertheless, they live in Washington, D.C., they think like D.C., they are haunted by the fear that if their career flags too much they will be banished from D.C., and they fight each other for the right to sit on the floor nearest the table of the liberals, where they can get the biggest scraps which fall from that table.
(*SMIRKING NOD FOLLOWED BY A SNICKER*)
They are the loyal opposition: loyal, that is, to the regime, not to the people.
* LOYAL TO THE ESTABLISHMENT... TO THE OLIGARCHY...
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
They are not the solution. In fact they are more of a problem than the liberals, because when occasionally they are in power, they spout disconnected free-market slogans while they spend us into oblivion and practice crony capitalism, giving free-markets an undeserved black eye.
* YES! YES! YES!
True resistance to socialism will not come from such an opposition force as our current conservative ruling elite. Better no opposition than faux opposition.
I don’t want to be too cynical. Kept conservatives may once have been true, principled conservatives, and may well have gone to Washington initially as Mr. Smiths, with pure intentions and a desire to save it. But unlike Jimmy Stewart’s character, when they got hit with the overwhelming allure and threat of great power, they "went native."
For a time I ran a conservative think tank called the Allegheny Institute (more on that in a future column) which focused on free market solutions to local problems. This is where I first saw the phenomenon of the kept conservative up close and personal. I was an adviser to some members of the country commission.
Counties in America are often governed by a county commission system under three commissioners. The system is set up so that two are of the majority party and the third is of the minority party.
In Allegheny County (the Pittsburgh region) that pretty much always meant two Democrats and one Republican. The only real fight the Republicans ever fought was not which party would govern the county, but which Republican would be the minority commissioner. If he didn’t make too much trouble, some small sliver of jobs patronage was thrown his way, maybe a few contracts for his favored vendors with the county, and a small staff on the county budget, plus his salary, benefits, driver, etc. Crumbs from the table of the Democrat machine.
* YEP... I'VE SEEN IT UP CLOSE TOO. IT'S JUST AS THE AUTHOR DESCRIBES.
I see the same thing on a national scale right now: Republican congressmen who are more afraid of losing their jobs than they are of losing their integrity. I get it, really I do. D.C. is a company town and the company is government and if the company keeps growing there’s something for everyone.
* NOT ME. I DON'T GET IT. AND MY REACTION IS THAT THESE SCUM HAVE TO GO!
The safest route is to become invested in the mission of growing the company and keeping your bit of the big game safe. But if you take a risk, a real risk, and stand up for principle and just vote "no" on the fiscal cave, or draw a line in the cement (enough with the lines in the sand, which are washed away with each new tide) and vote "no" on new debt, you just might end up being exiled from all of that, sent back home to Poughkeepsie, New Rochelle, Upper St. Clair, Springfield, Greenville, Franklin or Fairview, where it’s back to work on Monday running the restaurant chain or the auto dealership. You probably don’t even get to be the head of some trade federation in D.C. because that’s really a former Senator kind of job; it’s not for just some House of Representative back-bencher. And forget about a plum think tank gig or CNBC/CNN/MSNBC Contributor gig at $500 a pop.
* FOLKS... MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH THE AUTHOR IS THAT HE FAILS TO MENTION FOX NEWS. THEY DO THIS SHIT ALL THE TIME.
The opposite of a kept conservative could be called a "Saint Thomas More conservative."
* AKA: THE "BILL BARKER CONSERVATIVE."
He (or increasingly often, she) values integrity more than power. Thomas More, of course, valued his integrity even more than his life! I wonder: can’t we at least get conservatives in Washington who value their integrity more than their lifestyles?
* NOPE. YOU CAN'T. THAT'S WHY I FEAR IT'S ALL GONNA COLLAPSE IN VIOLENCE ONE DAY.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/opinion/my-valuable-cheap-college-degree.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&
The median inflation-adjusted household income fell by 7% between 2006 and 2011...
* WE'VE NOTED SUCH STATS BEFORE, FOLKS, BUT THINK ABOUT THE ABOVE SENTENCE STRICTLY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF TODAY'S MSM ECONOMIC SPIN... THE HAPPY TALK ABOUT THE DOW... THE "HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN" MANTRA THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL AND JUST CONTRAST THE HAPPY TALK TO THE REALITY I REPORT ON DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY.
...while the average real tuition at public four-year colleges increased over that period by over 18%.
* OH... YEAH... BTW, THIS IS A NEWSBITE ABOUT COLLEGE COSTS! (HEY... NOTICE HOW IT FITS IN WITH MY STAND ALONE POSTING OF EARLIER CONCERNING INFLATION...)
The average tuition for just one year at a four-year private university in 2011 was almost $33,000, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
College tuition has increased at twice the rate of health care costs over the past 25 years.
* AND AT LEAST WITH HEALTHCARE WE'RE SUPPOSEDLY GETTING *BETTER* HEALTH CARE; WE KNOW THIS ISN'T THE CASE WITH EDUCATION.
* ANYWAY... I ASK THAT YOU FOLKS READING THIS NEWSBITE UTILIZE THE LINK AND READ THE FULL PIECE. IT'S NOT LONG. NOT COMPLICATED. I HAVE MY PROBLEMS WITH THE AUTHOR'S PROPOSALS, HOWEVER, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PROPOSAL. I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY.
Post a Comment