dismal news to the job market ....

 

 4 million jobs are missing. Just what went wrong ?

 

This week was dismal news to the job market . As grim as those jobs figures were – just 69,000 jobs created and an unemployment rate that ticked up to 8.2 percent – that may not have been the worse news for Obama. Reading  today the San Jose Mercury News  : "weakening recovery is a serious vulnerability for President Barack Obama as he faces re-election, and it provides traction to his Republican rival, Mitt Romney" The President on the offensive said that his administration has created 4 million jobs in  4 years . Somehow the numbers don't add up, unemployment is at 8.2 % and has been in that percentage in the last 4 years . No new jobs were created , however the Obama stimulus money saved a lot of public sector jobs that would have made the national unemployment average 10 % today if there had not been any stimulus money anyhow. Mr. Obama blames Congress for failure to pass his Job's bill . I question now is Since the Tea Party took power, Congress has been the most ineffectual in the history of our nation — last session, passing into law a paltry 80 bills, the fewest since the country began tracking such things.  We also have a President since he took office has been out of the office campaigning , and unable to sit with Congress to resolve anything least but a federal budget . Scream foul here .Obama has a to-do list for Congress, especially the Republic-led House: “Reward American jobs, not outsourcing … Expand refinancing for responsible homeowners … Invest in tax credits for small-business jobs … Invest in clean-energy manufacturing … Create a veterans jobs corps.”"My message to Congress is get to work," Obama said in his weekly radio address Saturday.  OK . Let's get to work!

 

NOTES & COMMENTS:

 

 After 3 1/2 years in office, it's getting harder to blame the painfully slow recovery on the mistakes of his predecessor, George W. Bush. But Obama keeps reminding the public of how bad things were when he took office in January 2009. The economy was deep into the recession and losing jobs month after bleak month. He's also tried shifting blame to congressional Republicans, saying they've held up the recovery by refusing to pass most elements of his jobs bill. And he says some factors dragging down the U.S. economy are beyond a president's control, such as the European economic crisis and fluctuating gasoline prices. The weakening economy in China and turbulence in the Middle East haven't helped, either.  

FOX news without OBAMA.

 Rush Limbaugh won't have a job without Obama, ratings could fall.

Without Obama what would the right wing media do? They would surly go out of business because they won't have Obama to attack any more.

Think the inevitable Obama loses to Mitt Romney , the shock value just wont hit the Democrats . Most of all  it could hurt Republicans . The Right Wing news media outlets would all faultier . FOX news has made it a stable diet on it's shows like HANNITY to constantly destroy Obama . RUSH Limbaugh's radio show wont have any "theme" anymore . Ya Limbaugh would go out of business . A multi -billion dollar industry would collapse in one night if Obama loses in November . Just would would GLEN BECK do ? His books over the last few years were all best sellers , their popular theme "up the ante on Obama" . The anti Obama machine has been a industry of books , conspiracy theories on the evils of a Marxist Obama . FOX news should hope that Obama wins , or else talk Radio just would be boring as hell with nothing to criticize. Remember it was Obama that blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”In a more than 8,000-word interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, Obama compared the cable news channel to papers owned by William Randolph Hearst at the turn of the 20th century that unabashedly pushed the media titan's own political views.Of course he hates Fox News. Fox News is moderate to conservative. Obama is left moderate to way left liberal. Fox News calls him on every spending program that he doles out with Pelosi and calls him on his lack of experience for his job. Of which he probably has the least experience for a President in recent (life time) history. No one likes a critic, but particularly when they are faster, smarter and can give a solid reason for their position and you can not give one for yours. It's much easier to just say they are evil and racist ....as a perception of FOX news had become since Obama's election to the Left Wing Media .

 Meanwhile......

OBAMA outspends  Since launching his campaign about 13 months ago, Obama has held more fundraisers than most recent presidents combined, bringing in $233 million from big donors so far. Obama is betting for a second term . Money walks , and you have to be a rich to eat with President Obama . By the way, the price tag for the Clooney-Hollywood dinner was $40,000 a plate. Four times the amount he said gets you “access” that you “can’t imagine.”  It only shows that you can't be an average Joe to run for a public office anymore . Mitt Romney so far has kept low key . Here's a scoop . The Mitt Romney campaign is hopeful an opportunity to dine with Donald Trump will bring in donations. By donating $3 online, people will be entered into a raffle for a chance to have dinner with Trump and the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

The winner will also stay at the Trump International Hotel & Tower New York and tour the Celebrity Apprentice Boardroom. For a Rich man  Romney has it a bit meager to contrast the millions poring into the Obama campaign. Still Romney has his rich donators  as well . There is much speculation on how much the Mormon Church as poured into his campaign , I would not elaborate it here . Trump although has made some donations to Romney as much as the secretive Soros did for Obama . Stay tuned here!

Media hysteria.Left & Right.

The News Media has begun to change sides . Mitt looking more positive to the public , while Obama is teetering.

The Media has now begun the shell game of endorsement . Recently Newsweek and Time magazine seem to be doing bio's on Mitt Romney mother, Lenore the focus of the Time magazine article titled, "The Mother of the Mitt Campaign." The article features rare pictures of a 23-year-old Romney and his mom as they hit the campaign trail while he was a college senior. The story tells how the young Romney traveled to every county in Michigan in a blue truck with a Lenore logo on it. The Story in Time magazine is obvious propaganda to help  Romneys image  after the bulling story .  If I am not getting it . The news media  Now seems to be shifting towards the right  The portrait of Obama now in the media  is of a struggling President  . The message for Obama is "Get your act together, buddy, before it’s too late!"  Just a few weeks ago, the conventional wisdom was that the President was virtually unbeatable: game over. Now many media savants and political insiders have spotted an alarming wobble in his victory march back to the Oval Office. “Obama Stumbles Out of Gate,” blared a Friday morning headline on Politico, home base for political junkies of all stripes.In attempting to rally the base and raise money, Obama has moved from one issue to another over the past few weeks. Surely, he needs to articulate a clearer vision of where he intends to take the country and how he intends to kick-start a slowing economy. While Obama is not gay , the media ripped him when he decided to support gay marriage .  The Newsweek cover that slapped a rainbow halo on the man it called “the first gay president”. It's important how the public perceives a candidate regardless of his or her support of a political issue , but Obama is now being criticized by the same media that made him President of the United States . The Media hysteria has begun. There is another indicator, however, and it is far more reliable. The left-leaning media is getting hysterical, launching over-the-top attacks on Romney and moving to protect President Obama as they see the public turning away from their man.

THE ABC NEWS POLL:

Here are two questions from the ABC News/WaPo poll:

Q: Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you trust to do a better job handling the economy? A: Obama: 46%, Romney: 47%
Q: Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you trust to do a better job creating jobs?
A: Obama: 47%, Romney 44%

Sizzle, fizzle IPO.

Mark Zuckerberg. The Genius who made "suckers" out of Investors.

Facebook IPO--Sizzle, fizzle. The "sizzle" side goes something like this: "Are you kidding me? This is huge and everyone got what they wanted. The company got its valuation of $104 billion; Zuckerberg got his $19-plus billion; about 400 millionaires were created; the bankers got what they wanted -- sizzle enough for you? Oh, and Mark and Prsicilla got married the next day. So, say what you like, but this is SIZZLE, baby." Once again, the small investor was taken to the cleaners and they have only themselves to blame. Did anyone think it through before buying into this hyped stock?  This was a classical plumb and dump, only the pump and dumpers didn't even know it themselves.  Even with 900 million subscribers who pay nothing for the right to use it's site, these new tech generation people will jump ship once a new product  comes along or they get to see advertisements every time they check their messages.  Advertisements are going to kill off the goose because Madison Avenue Ad agencies will never be able to justify paying for ads that no one looks at on a 2 inch screen. Facebook and its lead investor, Morgan Stanley did contribute, however.  If they had stayed with the original asking price of $28 and offered a few million shares less, Facebook’s IPO is likely to have result in a modest but healthy success–but a little greed set in. Morgan Stanley s also rumored to to have bought back millions of shares in an attempt to shore up the IPO stock price. What happens to the price when the underwriter starts selling them off again? Facebook’s disappointing public company debut has drawn a great deal of media scrutiny and criticism. But the finger pointing has not been contained just to the front pages of the newspapers. Disappointed investors have also now resorted to the courts, and further lawsuits seem likely to follow.First, on May 22, 2012, an investor who claims to have purchased shares in the Facebook IPO filed a purported securities class action lawsuit in California (San Mateo County) Superior Court against Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg, CFO David Ebersman,   seven outside directors, and 32 offering underwriters.In support of these allegations, the federal court complaint cites a May 19, 2012 Reuters article entitled "Morgan Stanley Was a Control Freak on the Facebook IPO -- And It May Have Royally Screwed Itself" (here) and a May 22, 2012 Reuters article entitled "INSIGHT: Morgan Stanley Cut Facebook Estimates Just Before Facebook IPO" (here). Facebook's IPO appears to have been riddled with insider-trading. 

NOTES & COMMENTS:  

Well it looks like the companies who thought they were getting in on the ground floor of something big will have to wait instead of the quick turn around and profit taking they envisioned.  I see nothing wrong with the fact the Facebook has been hovering around it initial cost.  It may go way down and then those that bought it at $38 will whine like babies who thought they were guaranteed quick money.  Or, it could go up in time but not quickly.  Anyway I look at it I laugh at all the greedy idiots who have to wait for their money if they get it at all.

Budgetary Considerations.

 The Political Cartoon that appeared in almost every newspaper nation wide , it's too funny , yet so true to our dysfunctional government.

It has been 1,113 days, One THOUSAND, Thirteen Days, since the Democrats in the Senate have passed a budget.  The House, except for the first year under Democat rule, has passed budgets.And it is simply pathetic that Obama submits a budget that does not get ONE VOTE FROM HIS OWN PARTY THE DEMOCRATS.   99-0 and the Democrats have the majority in the Senate.  Pathetic. This is a problem . A BIG problem . We have a Congress so gridlocked that the nation can't get further in adopting a workable bi-partisan budget. Sure The REPUBLICANS want Obama out , so they play possum. The Democrats don't seem to want to help Obama either.There is just a picture on a canvas hanging on the wall . Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan. NOW there is a big fight for Obama to pass his tax plan as part of his election campaign,It fleshed out a major theme of his re-election campaign: "economic fairness." Obama wants wealthier Americans to bear more of the burden of slashing a federal deficit that was a trillion plus dollars for a fourth year in a row.The $3.8 trillion budget proposal is a "reflection of shared responsibilities," the Democratic president said at a campaign-style event in Annandale, Virginia, referring to his call for a minimum 30 percent tax on millionaires. 

 NOTES & COMMENTS:
Of the over $7 Trillion that the Democrats have added to the national debt since they took control of Congress on 1/4/2007, less than $1 Trillion of that debt is in the form of “Intragovernmental Holdings”.
Over $6 Trillion in new debt has been added to “Debt Held by the Public”, MUCH MORE THAN DOUBLING IT from under $4.9 Trillion to over $10.9 Trillion.
Stop for a second and really think about that. The “Debt Held by the Public” (and much of it held by China) has grown by more than 123% since the Democrats took control of the budgeting and spending process less than 5 and a half years ago!

*********************************************************************************

LAST BUT NOT LEAST . It  was reported today that  The owner of China’s largest movie **theater circuit took a big leap forward into the U.S. market, acquiring AMC Entertainment Inc., the nation’s second-largest theater chain, the latest in a flurry of high-profile deal-making between the countries’ entertainment industries. Dalian Wanda Group, a Chinese conglomerate, said in a statement that it had reached an agreement to acquire AMC’s 5,034 screens in 346 theaters in the U.S. and Canada. The Kansas City, Mo., theater chain is owned by several investment firms, including JPMorgan Partners, Apollo Investment Fund and Bain Capital Investors.The transaction is valued at $2.6 billion and would create the world's largest cinema owner, the companies said in a statement.The deal marks the largest investment to date by a Chinese company in the U.S. entertainment industry and gives Wanda a foothold into the U.S. movie theater business in what some analysts viewed as a “trophy” acquisition. American dollars on  communist Chinese-owned theaters, where the American entertainment would be transformed into yet another casualty of the Chinese invasion.
China taking over everything  

And the Americans' shortsightedness and short-term-profit-seeking corporations are making it easier for them.

**  Infrastructure is important, however unlike China, we have an infrastructure, If all he is trying to do is create jobs there are MUCH cheaper ways of going about it and to be honest UNLESS we stop the off shore bleeding of our industrial output, any ‘stimulus, will only get us into deeper problems. He needs to reform regulation that has pushed industry away, not simply throw money at the problem and hope that it will go away. Oh throwing money at it will ‘help’ but not much.

Bush Tax cuts what they ment for You!

AS the saying goes :

" I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for

any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. " ---Quotable and notable Milton Friedman .

At any rate Bush's long legacy is about to end with a twist that will hurt all of the Americans soon. You don't have to be one of the 1% to bet hit on a different tax rate . The 99 % will be hit just as hard as the 1 % . Blame Congress , and Mr. Obama  ( the next President ) .Specifically, the existing 10% bracket will go away, and the lowest "new" bracket will be 15%. The existing 25% bracket will be replaced by the new 28% bracket; the existing 28% bracket will be replaced by the new 31% bracket; the existing 33% bracket will be replaced by the 36% bracket; and the existing 35% bracket will be replaced by the 39.6% bracket. Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains is scheduled to increase to 20% (or 18% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years). The maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to 39.6%.
People in the lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15% currently pay 0% on long-term gains and dividends. Starting next year, they will pay 10% on long-term gains (or 8% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years) and 15% and 28%, respectively, on dividends. If your Married you will get penalized next year .
Before the Bush tax cuts, a phaseout rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual's itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated in 2010.
Next year, the phaseout will be back in full force unless Congress takes action and the president approves. So, if you itemize and have 2013 adjusted gross income above about $175,000 (or about $87,500 if you use married-filing-separate status), get ready for this phaseout rule to take a bite out of your wallet.

The Mentality fostered on is that the Higher earners should pay for more , and that has been the philosophical turning point for the Obama agenda to raise taxes to pay for "things" . Altogether we should note that our nation is in debt ( 15 trillion ) as we know , and  what better way is to let the Bush tax cuts slip and  burden all Americans. Congress is hog tied , and shackled on how to address  the debt . The spending mentality contributed to a burden of heavier taxation .

NOTES & COMMENTS:

The original cuts were approved in large part because the U.S. Treasury was running a surplus back then. However, today's budget deficit, combined with the politicized atmosphere of a midterm election year, mean that any changes before the existing tax laws sunset are not sure things.With that said, realistically, taxes have to go up on everybody, both rich and poor, both workers and investors. We have to pay for what we already spent. Only after we have paid for what we already spent can we start to debate whether we want to be a country of social safety nets or not. If we choose not to be a country of social safety nets, then we can lower taxes on everybody. However, if we want to be a country of social safety nets, then everybody has to pay into it, not just the upper middle class and the rich.

Don't Blame Prop 13 !

 California is not BROKE as we are told , with yearly shortfalls of revenue . It's flushed with Cash and has a high Tax rate.

There has been a lot of debate here in California. Whether to rescind or change Prop 13 . Prop 13 is getting the blame for California's never ending budget shortfalls . But are the facts accurate?Californians pay the highest taxes in the nation. If our money isn't providing the education system you want, maybe it's time to vote for legislators who will, but I won't be holding my breath Here a bit of my own detective work.[T]he state still brings in a lot in property taxes. By 2007, the year of the most recent Census Bureau data comparing state finances, California's state and local governments levied $1,141 in property taxes per capita, less—but only 11 percent less—than the corresponding average, $1,288, for the other 49 states and the District of Columbia. Property-tax revenues in the state have increased from $4.9 billion to $47 billion in the 30 years since Proposition 13 Adjust those figures for inflation and population growth, and property-tax revenues in California were 87 percent higher in 2009 than they were in 1979, chiefly because of rising property values.And even if one tax is limited, others can rise. A recent article in the California Journal of Politics and Policy by Colin McCubbins and Mathew McCubbins shows that, adjusted again for population growth and inflation, total state and local tax revenues in California were higher ten years after Proposition 13's enactment than they were just before—and that they were half again as high in 2000 as in 1978. Census Bureau data show that California ranked tenth in the nation in 2007 in terms of per-capita receipts from all state and local taxes (property, income, sales, and excise taxes) paid by individuals and corporations. Per-capita receipts from individual and corporate income taxes were 64 percent higher in California than they were in the rest of the country: $1,764 in California, $1,077 elsewhere. All told, California's governments received $4,731 per resident from all taxes, 14 percent more than the $4,160 average outside California. [...[E]ven if we confine our discussion to the ten most populous states in the nation, home to 54 percent of all Americans in 2009, California remains a high-tax jurisdiction. Its per-capita taxes exceed not only the national average but those of every other high-population state except New York. [...][N]ot only is California a high-tax state; it is even more conspicuously a high-revenue state. Things that aren't taxes, such as fees for government services, often have a high degree of "taxiness," as Stephen Colbert might say. "Charges and fees have become an integral part of the California budgetary landscape" because they "give the government a revenue stream that is not subject to limitation and hard for voters to track," the McCubbinses argue. [...]
Thus it is that the Golden State, routinely described as desperately short of funds because of Proposition 13, brought in $12,776 per capita in governmental income from all sources—taxes, fees, federal aid, charges for government-administered insurance, and revenue from government-owned utilities—in 2007. This amount was the fifth-highest in the nation and second (again) only to profligate New York among the ten most populous states[.]
]

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

If we did not have Prop 13 in-place  today , and you add the high cost of housing and foreclosures, the tax on property would drive home owners out .Attacks on Proposition 13 can be divided into two categories, the semi-serious and the ludicrous.The first category come from those who believe government is entitled to more taxpayer money and there should be no restrictions on government’s ability to get it, such as Proposition 13’s limit on annual increases in property taxes and the two-thirds vote required of both houses of the Legislature to raise state taxes.Also in this group are those who say Proposition 13’s acquisition value system is unfair, in that it means that someone who bought their home many years ago, when home values and wages were much lower, may end up paying less than a new neighbor who is willing to pay more, now that both prices and salaries are higher. These folks usually advocate higher taxes for longtime owners, not tax reductions for new buyers.California's state legislature continues to promote and fund needless and ineffective entitlement programs. No state program, no matter how ridiculous, has ever been eliminated. Don't forget the multitude of state commissions that provide a way for politically connected or termedout legislators to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year while doing nothing.