Democrats profiting off the little guy: Corporate profits at 12% under Bidenflation have been much better than under Trump at 4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The dirty little secret about corporate profits: they've been much better after 13 quarters of Biden than they were after 16 quarters of Trump, averaging 4.14% yoy under Trump and 12.13% under Biden.

 

This is a great little arrangement between Democrats and big business. Democrat-aligned business makes off with your cash while politicians pretend to do something about it in exchange for campaign contributions, with the important benefit that inflation inflates away the cost of their spendthrift deficit spending.

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which did no such thing and Democrats said would cost nothing, is estimated to cost the taxpayers nearly $800 billion by 2031 according to the liberal Brookings Institution.

This is your fascist America.

 

Shielding price increases by blaming them on inflation has been the modus operandi of the period. Price gouging is real, but gimmicks which address only symptoms won't solve the problem, which is caused by increasing the money supply and deliberately increasing other costs as a matter of policy, like energy and regulation, which businesses also can plausibly blame.

 

But Harris knows the demagogic value of running against price gouging.

 

Price controls poll particularly well. You can fool most of the people most of the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nellie Ohr of opposition research firm Fusion GPS, employed by the Hillary campaign, and wife of DOJ prosecutor, Bruce Ohr, first authored the Trump Dossier's Millian fictions in April 2016 according to Durham

  Nellie Ohr is an ex-CIA contractor.

She wrote her first Millian report in April 2016, the month before Fusion GPS hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to put his imprimatur as a supposed former “spy” and "Russian insider" on the dossier. 
 
"This report was prepared just ten days after Fusion GPS was retained by [Clinton campaign law firm] Perkins Coie to conduct opposition research on Trump,” the Durham Report states, "and prior to Steele being retained by Fusion GPS." 

Durham suggests Nellie Ohr planted the seeds of sourcing for the most explosive allegations leveled by the dossier against Trump, including the oft-cited notion that he and his campaign were engaged in a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” with the Kremlin. The dossier attributed this, falsely, to Millian. Durham found that the Belarusian-American realtor was never a source for the dossier and was simply invented as one, along with the allegations attributed to him.

In fact, Durham says that Millian initially wasn’t even on the radar of Steele and his dossier “collector" Igor Danchenko, a former Brookings Institution analyst who's admitted much of the information he provided Steele was alcohol-lubricated gossip. Millian was called to their attention by Nellie Ohr, who the prosecutor said “implicated" Millian through her own reports. Durham suggests Steele and Danchenko merely followed her leads.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor added, Bruce Ohr, an anti-Trump Democrat, pushed his wife’s reports that cited Millian — 12 in all — onto the Crossfire Hurricane team at FBI headquarters that was investigating Trump and his campaign for possible espionage. Agents used her reports as a source of corroboration for the Steele reports they received in the summer and fall of 2016, even though it was circular reporting. ...

In other words, Steele was not the catalyst behind the dossier’s central claims. Rather, it was Clinton's contractor Fusion GPS -- but more specifically, the wife of a senior DOJ official who worked for Fusion. So the FBI wasn’t really investigating "Crown reporting,” as officials referred to Steele’s dossier, implying it was British intelligence. More accurately, it was investigating information from inside its own department that was laundered through Steele and his dossier.

The Durham report shows that the FBI had the dossier reports in July 2016, two months before the time in September insisted upon by the FBI.

The Ohrs are ground zero for the Trump-Russia-collusion disinformation operation. 

More. 

FBI omitted from FISA application from the start that Carter Page helped the CIA for years, but this liberal lefty lying lawyer calls that a process issue

LOL: Rat-infested cities tend to be Democrat cities

Trump’s Attack on Baltimore Doesn’t Go Far Enough:

Take a look at the eight other cities that beat Baltimore on Orkin’s rattiest cities list. What do they all have in common? We’ll, let’s see:

Chicago hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1931. Philadelphia last saw a Republican mayor in 1952, Detroit in 1962. San Francisco has been Democrat-controlled since 1964. Washington, D.C., has never had a Republican mayor.

In Los Angeles, Democrats have run the city in all but eight of the past 58 years, in New York, it’s eight in the past 74 (not counting John Lindsay, who switched parties while in office). Cleveland’s been run by Democrats in all but 16 of the past 78 years.

Indeed, if you want to see what liberal Democratic policies tend to produce, go to any one of those cities, or other Democratic strongholds. Democrats promise to help the poor and downtrodden, grow the middle class, make life more fair. But their policies consistently produce the opposite.

These cities are rife with crime. Baltimore ranks No. 1 for robberies and No. 2 for murders. Many of the other rat-infested cities also rank high for violent crimes. Their infrastructure is crumbling. The middle class has largely abandoned them. 

And far from tackling inequality, Democrats have made it worse. Washington, San Francisco and New York are all in the top 10 for biggest income inequality levels, according to the Brookings Institution. Other Democrat cities — Providence, Miami, Boston, New Orleans — are also on the list.

Washington, San Francisco, New York, Detroit, and Cleveland are also among the 10 worst-run cities, according to WalletHub. Three other Democratic strongholds — Oakland, Flint, Hartford — make WalletHub’s worst-run list.

 

Brookings: Trump's record on GDP and investment is "middling"

Correctamundo.

Here.

Robert Tracinski skewers some libertarians for the socialism in their heads, but still misses why it's there

Here, chalking it all up to "unexamined collectivist assumptions" and mistakenly allowing "a little dominion of socialism over their thinking" and the left "trying to preserve that territory they own in your head" through various schemes like the estate tax.

In other words, they're insufficiently indoctrinated. You know, like all those intractable Russians who were sent to the Gulag for nothing more than mistakenly expressing incorrect thoughts.

It never dawns on Tracinski that ideology is a coin with socialism on the one side and libertarianism on the other.

The article is amusing because the "conservatives" he skewers for being insufficiently libertarian are or were aligned with the left and leftism: Charles Murray (former labor unionist, six years in the Peace Corps, "rebel"), Ronald Reagan ("I didn't leave the Democratic Party . . ."), Stuart Butler of health mandate infamy (Brookings), Milton Friedman (FDR functionary) and Megan McArdle (self-described former "ultraliberal").

With the example of McArdle on the estate tax before him, one might have hoped that Tracinski had stumbled into the origin of the socialism in our heads, but no, "there is no such collective entity as 'society.'"

The man wishing to leave his estate to that little society called his family might have begged to differ.

US oil refining capacity is mismatched for our boom in light, sweet crude

So we either expand that capacity, or lift the 1975 ban on oil exports. Obama's decision to do nothing except take credit for production from private lands suggests he wants the oil boom to end.

Robert Samuelson, who has basically concluded elsewhere that Obama is lazy, in addition to being phony, tiny and small, here:

"The new oil consists mostly of "sweet, light" crudes, meaning they have a low sulfur content and are less dense than "sour, heavy" crudes. The trouble is that many U.S. refineries have been designed to process heavy, sour crudes and, therefore, aren't suitable for the new oil. At the end of 2013, the United States had 115 oil refineries capable of processing about 18 mbd, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. About half were fitted for sour and heavy crudes. That's especially true along the Gulf of Mexico coast where more than half of U.S. refining capacity is located.

"The result is that more and more new oil is chasing less and less usable refining capacity. Refineries' bargaining power rises. Producers have to accept price discounts to sell their oil. A second problem is that much of the new production is located in North Dakota with an inadequate pipeline network to transport the crude to refineries. To offset more costly barge and rail transportation, producers (again) have to discount prices.

"Some strains will be eased by refinery expansions and new pipelines. How much is unclear. But as a report from the Brookings Institution argues, producers will be discouraged by an oil market that seems rigged against them. They will react by slowing -- or possibly stopping -- new exploration. The oil boom will ebb or end. Global oil supplies will then be lower than they would otherwise be; prices will be higher. It's a bad outcome for the United States but a good one for Russia, Iran and other producers hostile to us."

Heritage Foundation's Stuart Butler of ObamaCare mandate fame decides he's more comfortable at the liberal Brookings Institution

Conservatives seeking institutionalization. No wonder Robin Williams committed suicide.

Seen here:

Mr. Butler, 67 years old, said he was attracted to Brookings by the idea of working at a place that is not monolithic in its approach to public policy.

“Brookings is a different kind of institution. It’s a collection of scholars as opposed to a team-focused organization,” Mr. Butler said in an interview Thursday. “There’s an opportunity to sit around in the cafeteria to talk about all kinds of different issues from the theoretical to the practical.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stuart Butler was the author of the original healthcare mandate idea at Heritage in 1989. He's been trying to walk that back ever since 2010, but what appears to have driven him into the arms of the liberals was the ascendancy of libertarian Senator Demented Jim to head up Heritage, who subsequently brought in Club For Growth founder Steve Moore, who was The Wall Street Journal's libertarian bad boy for many years.  

First Black President Brings Record High Poverty And Inequality As The New Normal

You talkin' to me?

Hm. Imagine that.

From the Associated Press story, here:

The nation's poverty rate remained stuck at 15 percent last year despite America's slowly reviving economy, a discouraging lack of improvement for the record 46.5 million poor and an unwelcome benchmark for President Barack Obama's recovery plans.

More than 1 in 7 Americans were living in poverty, not statistically different from the 46.2 million of 2011 and the sixth straight year the rate had failed to improve, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median income for the nation's households was $51,017, also unchanged from the previous year after two consecutive annual declines, while the share of people without health insurance did improve but only a bit, from 15.7 percent to 15.4 percent.

"We're in the doldrums, with high poverty and inequality as the new normal for the foreseeable future," said Timothy Smeeding, an economics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in income inequality. "The fact we've seen no real recovery in employment and wages means we've just flatlined." ... 

"This lack of improvement in poverty is disappointing and discouraging," said John Iceland, a former Census Bureau chief of the poverty and health statistics branch who is now a Penn State sociology professor. "This lack of progress in poverty indicates that these small improvements in the economy are not yet being equally shared by all."

Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in poverty, agreed.

"Everything's on hold, but at a bad level; poverty and income did not change much in 2012," he said. "So child poverty is still too high and family income is still too low. The recession may be over, but try to tell that to these struggling families. Don't expect things to change until the American economy begins to generate more jobs."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Way to go, Brownie!

Dem. Sen. Patty Murray Is Willing To Throw Middle Class Under The Bus

Unless Sen. Murray and the Democrats get what they want, the middle class is indeed expendable.

All taxpayers would be punished by Democrats' unwillingness to compromise with Republicans, who were elected to get spending under control, but no one more so than those Americans who file at the bottom of the income ladder in the 10 percent bracket, if current tax rates are allowed to expire as the Democrats threaten. Those hapless souls at the bottom will have to pay in the 15 percent bracket in that event, a tax rate increase of 50 percent.

It is remarkable that Democrats are willing to punish the poor in this way if they can't punish the rich in theirs.

Republicans want current progressive tax rates for all taxpayers made permanent, but Democrats do not. In Democrats' opinion, the rich don't deserve to pay their currently much higher rates, but need to pay even higher ones to meet a definition of fair Democrats demand to write by themselves. Nevermind a tax increase of any kind anywhere in this economy will be negative for growth. As for the spending cuts, Democrats agreed to those in the face of a downgrade to America's bond rating, but they weren't enough, and the AAA rating went into the ashbin of history. If those cuts were going to be inadequate, why did Democrats vote for them, and why aren't they calling for steeper ones now in order to restore the country to AAA?

In France, new socialist government tax increases on the rich are driving the wealthy out of the country, taking their money with them to friendlier, lower-tax-rate neighbors, which will deprive France not only of the tax revenue, but of the investment capital.

Expect the same here if the Democrats get their way.

Here is Sen. Murray, quoted in The Christian Science Monitor:

With the US economy speeding toward a year-end fiscal cliff of some $560 billion in higher taxes and draconian spending cuts, Sen. Patty Murray (D) of Washington bluntly laid out her party’s position on how Congress should handle the nation’s coming fiscal travails: Go big or go over the ledge.

“Millions of jobs could be lost through the automatic cuts, programs families depend on would be slashed irresponsibly across the board, and middle-class tax cuts would expire.  And once again, if Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal,” said Senator Murray,  the Senate’s No. 4 Democrat, in a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday.

“[I]f we can’t get a good deal – a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share – then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013, rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,” she said.

Brookings Institution Must Be Nuts: Says Congressional Wealth Reflects Middle Class

Brookings Corporate Sponsors

I refer to this in USA Today (link) back in November:

Lawmakers disclose their assets and liabilities only in broad ranges. So the numbers are estimates — the average of a member's lowest and highest possible net worth. Their actual wealth is often higher because disclosures don't include home values.

Despite some superwealthy members, Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution says Congress generally reflects the middle class.

"In many cases, the top 10% are self-made … and it reflects something that's in the American psyche," he says. "We're not against people being rich. We just wish we were. But we are particularly attracted to people who made their own riches."

In the USA Today list of 530 US Representatives and Senators, fully 250 or 47 percent declare their net worth, sans their homes, to be $1 million or more. Add in everybody down to a declared net worth of $600K or more (the average of $1.1 million and $100K) and the list balloons to 315 or almost 60 percent of the Congress.

By contrast, 75 percent of the American people have average net worth of less than $80,000 as of 2007. In view of what has happened to housing values since then, I would expect more people to be worth even less than that.

Unlike the members of Congress in the USA Today report, household net worth calculations as tracked by the Federal Reserve include home values.

And between 2006 and Q3 2011, household net worth has fallen by $7.8 trillion, $6.6 trillion of which has been lost in the real estate maelstrom.

For Brookings to say Congressional wealth generally reflects the middle class is preposterous. Kind of like The Wall Street Journal claiming the tax money the government needs so desperately will be found in the middle class, not among the wealthy. Lies, damned lies, designed to rough you up before they pick your pockets again.

WE ARE RULED BY THE RICH.

Anyone who contributes one red cent to their campaigns should be . . . er, institutionalized.