Q2 2012 Annual Rate Of GDP, Third Estimate, Revised Down To 1.3 From 1.7

The BEA reports, here:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the "second" estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 1.7 percent (see "Revisions" on page 3).

The third estimate indicates that the economy was growing in the second quarter 24 percent less well than thought in the second estimate, and 35 percent less well than thought in the first quarter.

As an annualized rate of growth, today's report of 1.3 percent represents more slowing since 2011, which represented slowing from 2010 after the depression of 2008 and 2009. Clearly the trend continues down despite unleashing the full force of economic stimulus, all of it borrowed and running up the debt in the process while monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has robbed savers in broad daylight, savers who depend on a free market in interest rates which Ben Bernanke, the appointee of George Bush and Barack Obama, has done everything he can to subvert. He is as much the enemy of the people as Bush and Obama have been. 

The Fed recently embarked on so-called QE To Infinity And Beyond because it knew what was coming in this report.

It is high time America shouted NO to this cabal. Mitt Romney is the most likely person to right this ship commanded by these pirates.

It Be Da Winker Night At Drudge

Ohio Poll Showing Obama +10 With "Likely Voters" Prepares The Way For The Lord

The Ohio poll by Quinnipiac/CBS/NewYorkTimes here showing Obama +10 over Romney is of "likely voters", not telling us how many Democrats are represented in the results. They could be legion, in view of the fact that Rasmussen's latest poll in Ohio showed the race to be +1 Obama just days before this poll. Has anything significant happened in recent days to cause such a dramatic swing?

Despite the significance of the auto bailouts for the prognostications of local Democrat officials in Ohio, the fact that early voting in Ohio begins next week helps explain why it is necessary for Democrat sympathizers to release a favorable poll now to prepare the way of the lord.

Bailout Takers To Give Obama The Margin Of Victory In Ohio

Is Romney wrong to write-off voters who depend on direct government assistance?

Alec MacGillis for TNR, here:

When I was in Toledo last week, I asked Lucas County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz, a Democrat, what he made of Obama’s strong position, and he didn’t hesitate. “It’s the bailout," he said. "It’s not just the Jeep plant in Toledo and that they build the Chevy Cruze in Youngstown. But more than that -- we have 88 counties, and in 82 of them there are supplier plants to the larger ones. When you start talking about 82 of 88 counties that have some sort of direct, literal, positive impact from this rescue, I think that on the margins has the ability to tweak the numbers.”

The moral hazard of bailouts doesn't affect just the outcome for a business, but also the outcome for the politician responsible for it.

Gov. Romney should have considered that the contributions of bankers who were helped through TARP bailouts which he supported may be outnumbered by the votes of workers whose jobs the auto-bailouts he opposed preserved. 

Real Clear Politics Puts Ohio In Obama Column: He's 5 Votes Away From Victory

Real Clear Politics has put Ohio in the "leans Obama" column, here, which puts Obama 5 Electoral College votes away from clinching victory, according to the polling and math as presented.

Recent discussion of polling has included charges that polling is oversampling Democrats, that polling amounts to "in-kind contributions" to Democrat campaigns by news organizations biased toward liberalism, that polling is campaigning in another form, that polling is disinformation designed to suppress the turnout of the Republican opposition, etc.

So remember this map after the election is over, the only poll that counts.

Missouri Republicans Finally Stand Up For Rep. Todd Akin

So Reuters, here:

But the chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, David Cole, who had issued a statement soon after the rape remarks that questioned Akin's decision to remain in the race, said on Tuesday the state party supported Akin.

"We are confident that Todd will defeat McCaskill in November, and the Missouri Republican Party will do everything we can to assist in his efforts," he said.

Mike Huckabee has been there for Akin from the beginning. Newt has stepped up. Missouri Republicans are stepping up, following Newt's lead. Even Demented Jim's Senate Conservatives Fund is thinking about it.

What's to think about, Jim?

Meanwhile Reince Priebus of the Republican National Committee is still running away from Akin as fast as he can. That guy is as clueless as was his predecessor, Michael Steele.

Establishment Republicans are hopelessly clueless.

In Your Face, America!

Seen In Grand Rapids Last Week

Politics Is The Art Of The Possible

Madonna's Black Muslim In The White House

Reported here:

“Y’all better vote for f–king Obama, OK? For better or for worse, all right? We have a black Muslim in the White House! Now that’s some amazing s–t,” Madonna said. “It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights, so support the man, g-damnit.”

Good Soldier Newt Gingrich Campaigns For Todd Akin In Missouri

USA Today has the story here:

"If verbal mistakes mattered, Joe Biden couldn't be vice president," Gingrich said in the radio interview, adding he is supporting Akin because the congressman "admitted he made a mistake and apologized for it."

Republicans have cut-off funds for Akin, which tells the electorate all it needs to know about the Republican Party.

Republicans Still Don't Get It: Obama Is Not Carter Redivivus

Until the Republican Party comes to grips with the fact that the Bushes were two of the very worst presidents for the economy in the post-war period, it is never going to understand the current problem and offer America a decent alternative, which is that Obama is continuing in the Bushes' footsteps and is actually worse than them, if that were possible.

Obama is the second coming of George Bush, not of Jimmy Carter.

If only we had an economy like Jimmy Carter's, lousy as it was for its time. But total household net worth never increased more as a percentage than under his short tenure, and he ranked third best in the post-war period for increasing housing values. Those two categories, incidentally, were also where his successor Ronald Reagan shined the brightest as well.

Erick Erickson should know better:

"There are a lot of elitist Republicans who have spent several years telling us Mitt Romney was the only electable Republican. Because the opinion makers and news media these elitists hang out with have concluded Romney will not win, the elitists are in full on panic mode. They conspired to shut out others, tear down others, and prop up Romney with the electability argument. He is now not winning against the second coming of Jimmy Carter. They know there will be many conservatives, should Mitt Romney lose, who will not be satisfied until every bridge is burned with these jerks, hopefully with the elitist jerks tied to the bridge as it burns."

Mitt Romney is a fiscally conservative social liberal who doesn't really have a home in either of the two major political parties, which is why he's being attacked from all sides. It is not because of his social liberalism but because of his fiscal conservatism. Which is to say that both parties have expunged that idea from their lexicons since LBJ and no one really knows what it even means anymore.

But Romney may indeed know, and always gives the impression of knowing, which is why he is having a likeability problem. He comes off as the bad banker who won't increase your credit limit until you start catching up on your payments.

No one really likes a guy like that, but that is the kind of guy whom we most need right now, holding the veto pen. If he loses, fear of that will be the reason.

No one likes a spending party pooper.

The Worst Presidents For The Economy Club

1

2

3

4

4

5

5

On a scale of 7 to 70, 7 being best and 70 being worst, these guys score the following:

Obama 53, Bush the Younger 51, Bush the Elder 50, Nixon/Ford 48, Carter 42, Reagan 42.

The Best Presidents For The Economy Club

1

2

3

4

4

On a scale of 7 to 70, 7 being best and 70 being worst, their scores are:

Truman 21, Clinton 24, Eisenhower 26, JFK/LBJ 29.

Live Long And Prosper . . . Sans Nuts

Men supposedly live a lot longer, on average, minus the family jewels.

Story here.

Jeffrey Lord Doubts This Race Is Close

In The American Spectator, here:

After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."

Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?

"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign."

Got that? ...

How does one explain a president who, like Jimmy Carter in 1980, is increasingly seen as a disaster in both economic and foreign policy? How does a President Obama, with a Gallup job approval rating currently at 49% -- down a full 20% from 2009 -- mysteriously win the day in all these polls?

How does this happen?

Can you say "in-kind contribution"?

Election 2012: The Dilettante Radical Or The Conservative Liberal?

Can Liberals Count? Can Liberals Remember?

George Bush won Ohio in 2004 by 118,000 votes, but Andrew Sullivan remembers it differently, here:

"At this point in 2004, one recalls, George W. Bush was about to see a near eight-point lead shrivel to a one-state nail-biter by Election Day."

The real nail-biters were in Iowa, where Bush won by just 10,000 popular votes (7 electoral college votes), and in New Mexico, where Bush won by just 6,000 popular votes (5 electoral college votes), neither of which separately or together would have given victory to Democrat John Kerry.

Be that as it may, the real point of Sullivan's story is this:

"If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan."

Ah, no, he'll become the Democrats' W, or maybe their George H. W. Bush. Or if he's really really lucky maybe their Richard Nixon.

Obama's economic performance in the next four years would have to improve by 40 percent in seven key categories of economic measurement in comparison with all previous presidents to achieve the fair-to-poor record achieved by Ronald Reagan, whom I have shown elsewhere scored a lousy 42, just like Jimmy Carter.

President Obama's current score after 4 years is already 2 points worse than George Bush's score of 51 after 8 years, the worst two records in the post-war period. That means Obama would have to pull out  of his hat a veritable golden age to make him look as good as Reagan, which as I've said isn't saying much. To do it Obama would have to score a 32 in the next four years just to average out to a 42.

Can you imagine an Obama second term turning in an overall performance roughly close to that of JFK/LBJ, who rank 4th best out of 10 since WWII? Because that is what it would take.

Obama would have to go from worst for unemployment to 4th (think Clinton and W), starting tomorrow. He would have to go from worst to 4th for GDP (think Reagan and Eisenhower), for the next four years. He would have to go from worst to 4th for housing values (think Harry Truman). Only George Bush has been worse for the increase in Americans' total household net worth than Obama has been. To address that Obama would have to restore at least 1960s levels of prosperity to the country, if not Clinton era levels.

Fat chance.

Despite all the ruin which one man can rain down on a country through sheer incompetence and arrogance, the American people are a resilient lot and things will improve no matter who gets elected. The economy adjusts and moves on, and in many respects there is only one way to go but up. But if it's Obama who is elected again, I don't expect him to finish much better than a 48 after 8 years overall, because the first 4 have been such a disaster.

Romney Is Right: People Who Pay No Taxes Pay No Attention

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

The way to make them pay attention is to make them pay.

If America Can Re-Elect George Bush In 2004 . . .

. . . it can re-elect Barack Obama in 2012, the two worst presidents, back to back no less, since WWII.

Naked Capitalism Knows A Rival Ideology When It Sees One

It's an amusing attack on the libertarian ideologue Megan McArdle by the anarchist communist ideologue Yves Smith, here, at Naked Capitalism, if you think of it as a cat fight.

The comments are so disturbing to "Strelnikov" (appropriately continuing to use the pseudonym "Yves") that she's thinking of closing down free speech in the comments section for her "shaming" posts only. Call it perestroika.

(image source)

"Naked Capitalism" Supports The Occupy Movement

In your heart you felt she was nuts, but now you know it.

Those occasional protestations to being a middle of the road type of person never rang true when you observed all those posts she's had from Washingtons Blog, the 911 conspiracy theorist, who shows up, by the way, also at Barry Ritholtz' The Big Picture.

No one goes from being a moderate directly to anarchist communism unless they were something more extreme all along.

The first principle of all ideology is to lie in order to gain the confidence of the people, and if not the confidence, an opening.

Obama Replaces Bush For Worst Economic Conditions Since WWII

If you thought George W. Bush was the worst president ever, you were right . . . until now.

Compared to every president since WWII in seven broad categories of economic measurement, Bush came in dead last. But in just four short years President Obama has managed to mess up what it took George Bush to do in eight. Call President Obama "The Quicker Screwer Upper."

My readers know that I have been examining and ranking every president from Truman to Obama in recent days from best to worst in a variety of broad economic categories: increase in the national debt, control of the rate of inflation, growth of the economy, real stock market performance for investors, increase in housing values for savers, increase in household net worth and rate of unemployment. Follow the links to examine the results for each one.

When put all together, it's easy to see who has been the best president overall, and who the worst. The ideal president, naturally, would score a 7 overall on this scale, placing first in every category compared to his peers. The worst president would score a 70, placing last by every measure. That last number tells you how I have counted the presidents. JFK, who was assassinated in his first term, is grouped together with his VP LBJ. Nixon, who resigned in his second term, is grouped together with his VP Ford. That leaves eight others: Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, and Obama, stretching from 1948 until 2012.

Here's the list showing them all, from best to worst, including the numerical ranking in each category, and the overall score. Democrat Harry Truman comes out on top, and Democrat Barack Obama comes up in dead last. Over time the economic difference between Republican leadership in the White House and Democrat has been infinitesimally small, a difference of just 0.13 percent, slightly favoring Republicans who average 6.03 compared to Democrats who average 6.04.

Otherwise the main take away is that the only president to score in the 20s like long ago Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK/LBJ has been Bill Clinton, who spent the majority of his term in office with Republicans in control of the Congress. Any president who can again score in the 20s like him will necessarily be two times better economically for the country than George Bush and Barack Obama have been. They've both been unmitigated disasters.

Ranking for Debt+Inflation+GDP+SP500+Housing Values+Household Net Worth+Unemployment = score

Truman 1+6+2+1+4+6+1                       = 21

Clinton 4+5+3+2+1+4+5                        = 24

Eisenhower 2+1+5+3+6+7+2                 = 26

JFK/LBJ 3+3+1+6+8+5+3                     = 29

Carter 5+10+7+8+3+1+8                        = 42 (tie)

Reagan 10+8+4+7+2+2+9                      = 42 (tie)

Nixon/Ford 8+9+6+9+7+3+6                  = 48

Bush The Elder 6+7+8+5+9+8+7           = 50

Bush The Younger 9+4+9+10+5+10+4  = 51

Obama 7+3+10+4+10+9+10                   = 53 

Compared To Gold, Oil Is Still The Better Value

The gold to oil ratio is 19.11, over 27 percent elevated from 15.

Kudlow Is Right: Real Private Investment Is At October 1999 Level

Larry Kudlow is right. When it comes to inflation-adjusted private investment, the current level of private investment is at a level first reached way back in October 1999. The peak in this metric, which Larry Kudlow likens to our seed corn, was reached at the beginning of 2006. The current level is nearly 16 percent lower than that. That's a depression in investment dating back 6 years, and arguably 13 years, and goes a long way to explaining why George  W. Bush and Barack Obama rank at the very bottom of the list of post-war presidents for economic performance. View the chart and data here. 

ABC News Reports Obama Makes "False Claim"

False because . . . he's just mistaken? False because . . . he's just misinformed?

Gee, how about because he's lying?

The lengths to which these people will go to protect this snake. They exonerate him even as they convict him.

Story here.

Unemployment Since WWII: Obama Worst, Truman Best

The following rankings represent average monthly unemployment as reported in the BLS database, using November of the year elected through the October of the election year defeated or concluding service. As per usual, I do not count Truman's service in wartime, just his term from 1948 to 1952. Overall Republican performance is slightly worse than Democrat, 5.88 v. 5.75 percent.

The irony of this list is that Democrats head it and end it, with unemployment under Obama (46 months) more than twice as bad as under Truman, who 60 years ago posted what was to be the best unemployment record of any president since.

Truman                    4.44 percent

IKE                          4.82

JFK/LBJ                   4.91

Bush The Younger   5.21

Clinton                     5.28

Nixon/Ford               5.75

Bush The Elder        6.22

Carter                       6.55

Reagan                    7.58

Obama                     9.00

Rasmussen Takes Nevada Away From Obama And Into Toss Up

Here.

So on this math Obama is ahead 237 to 196 for Romney, with 105 electoral college votes up for grabs in now 9 states.

Real Clear Politics Puts Wisconsin In Obama Column

Here.

So Obama has an advantage according to RCP of 247 to 191 for Romney, with 100 electoral votes up for grabs in 8 states.

Net Worth Up Most Under Carter, Least Under "W" Since WWII

It's shocking, but true.

Total household net worth as reported by the Federal Reserve in its Z.1 Releases of the Flow of Funds Accounts shows that Jimmy Carter wins the award, hands down, for the increase in this metric during the course of his presidential term as compared with all other presidents in the post-war period.

In point of fact, the zenith of growth in total household net worth clusters around ole Jimmy with Nixon/Ford just preceding him taking 3rd position and Ronald Reagan coming after him taking 2nd. The whole period from 1969 through 1988 represents the time when Americans made their biggest gains in overall wealth.

I measured the overall gain from January 1 of the year of inauguration to the January 1 of the year leaving office, as summarized here by the St. Louis Federal Reserve. The overall percentage gain is then divided by the number of years in office, either 4 or 8, to get an annualized score, which is not the same thing, obviously, as actual annualized performance. Data from Truman is only for three years from 10-1-1949 to 1-1-53. For Obama, who just barely beats Bush The Younger for dead last, the data is for 1-1-09 to 6-30-12 taken from the very latest Z.1 Release yesterday (here).

Carter                 +16.02 percent per year

Reagan                 11.80

Nixon/Ford           10.21

Clinton                    9.74

JFK/LBJ                  8.78

Truman                   8.49

IKE                         7.39

Bush The Elder       6.17

Obama                    4.92

Bush The Younger  3.43

Election 2012: One Writes Off The Takers, The Other Writes Off Whites

Leading Authority Says We're Already In Another Recession

Here.

Flashback November 2011: 2012 Obama Campaign Writes Off Whites

The pot doth call the kettle black when complaining Romney has written off the 47 percent.

Democrats already wrote-off the white working class last November.

So Thomas Edsall for The New York Times, here:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

Rush has been all over this like a chicken on a june bug.

Mitt Romney Reaps What He Sows, Or Something

The liberal President Ronald Reagan once handed down an 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

He learned this rule from his life among the Democrats, whence he came to the Republican Party after he realized his former pals were getting cozy with the commies. To this day it takes forever for the Democrats to abandon one of their own to the wolves, even when they deserve it. Recent cases include Charley Rangel and that wiener guy from New York.

But Republicans still haven't learned this rule, proving the other one about old dogs. One whiff of trouble and a fellow Republican drops you like a hot potato. Hence the Rep. Todd Akin affair, even whose money they've cut off and would cut off his nuts if they could (a little Rev. Jesse Jackson humor there). Mitt Romney, being more at home with liberal Democrats, waited while everyone else piled on Akin before he decided to do so. Not exactly a profile in courage. More like a man torn about what he believes and which party he belongs in. As a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, he really is a fish out of water, seeing that the Democrats are the former and the Republicans are neither.

So it's not a little amusing to see the Republican establishment and Romney's other would be supporters now crucifying Romney for his 47 percent remarks last May, only just recently made public. If anyone will be to blame for Romney's loss in a few weeks' time, it will be the Peggy Noonans, Bill Kristols and John Tamnys of this world, not the conservatives. Rush Limbaugh rightly points out the irony that the conservatives, Romney's fiercest critics during the primaries, are his defenders today against his critics who were his liberal supporters yesterday, who insisted at the time that Romney was the only candidate who could win.

Meanwhile the clerisy rallies round the redistributionist, under whom income inequality has only increased. Spreading the wealth around all right . . . among the wealthy.

Same as it ever was.

How To Test Gold For Purity

From Felix Salmon, back in March, here:

If you can weigh the bar accurately, then you can test for purity by essentially dropping it in a bucket of water and seeing how much the water level rises: a gold-covered tungsten bar will displace more water than a pure gold bar. Alternatively, for $3,000 or so you can buy a micro ohm meter, which is easily sensitive enough to tell the difference in conductivity between a pure gold bar and one which is largely tungsten.

Obama's 1998 Redistributionist Admission Goes Viral Overnight

This clip had about 302 views when I saw it last night.

Like I've said from the beginning in 2009:

"One who has yearnings for equal division of unequal earnings."

Rasmussen Moves New Hampshire Into Toss-Up Status For A Total Of Eight

Here.

The move takes New Hampshire's 4 electoral college votes leaning Obama and puts them into limbo.

Romney needs 74 more electoral college votes based on this map. If he wins every toss up state shown save Florida, he still comes up 4 short.

So the key to victory for Romney still involves Florida, or turning another leaner his way, like Nevada with 6.

Irrational Exuberance In Producer Prices Coincided With Housing Bubble

Once producer prices hit the 122 level on the index in 1999, they really didn't look back for nine years, reaching a peak of 205 in 2008, a rise of 68 percent, pretty much tracking the housing bubble.

The dramatic reflation of the PPI since the recent nadir around 169 in 2009 has not been accompanied by a reflation of housing prices, try as the Fed may.

"With the exception of a few thoughtful men, the whole nation again sang paeans." -- Andrew White, Inflation in France (quoted here)

When The Weekly Standard Says Romney's Not Conservative, You Know He Is

It's the right's "pot calling the kettle black moment" of the campaign:

Plenty of conservatives are pushing back against the worldview espoused by Mitt Romney in his "arrogant and stupid' [sic] remarks at a private fundraiser earlier this year.

When representatives of National Review, The Daily Caller, The American Spectator and The Weekly Standard agree that Romney has sinned, you know he's finally done something right.

Rush Limbaugh and Red State counsel Romney to pile it on because they know that most Americans agree with Romney that handouts through the tax code are wrong, even if they don't quite understand the arithmetic.

But the aforementioned conservative establishment fuddy-duddies rebuke him, here, where you will find not a single mention of the specific handouts which Republicans have used as a form of welfare for the lower tax bracket filers, namely the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit of the tax code. Taxpayers use those credits, which are refundable, to offset any income tax they may owe and receive any remaining balance in the form of tax refunds. Usually those "refunds" are substantial balances due because they file under the 10 and 15 percent tax brackets where they pay little tax relative to higher earners in the first place, amounting to hundreds and even thousands of dollars in tax "refunds" which are no refunds at all, just handouts. This is the slimy work of liberalism on display, capturing a definition and gutting it, demonstrating for all to see that the so-called conservatives of the Republican Party are no conservatives at all because they participate in the ruse.

When just 17 percent of the American people still use paper and pencil to figure their taxes, it is not surprising how little understanding there is on this issue. Most people hire a tax-preparer or use something like TurboTax, and consequently have no mathematical understanding for the reason they are getting so much money back. But if so-called conservatives really were conservative, they would be explaining this to you, and not little ole obscure me.

Gov. Mitt Romney Is Exposing The Liberalism Of Presidents Reagan And Bush

Gov. Mitt Romney is forcing us to consider seriously how Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got carried away by liberal impulses and got us into troubles.

I think Romney was not a fan of Ronald Reagan in the 1990s because he realized Reagan's program was fiscally irresponsible, cutting taxes while increasing military spending to defeat Soviet Communism. The result was the largest increase in the US public debt since WWII. As a business man who can read a spread sheet, Mitt Romney can recognize fiscal insanity when he sees it.

Now a leaked video of a private fundraiser Romney addressed in Florida in May is being attacked by the left in recent hours. It shows Mitt Romney not too happy with the liberal consensus which uses the tax code as a form of welfare, primarily through the mechanism of tax credits combined with statutory tax rates which nullify income tax liability. This was not a bug in the law. It was a feature intended all along. Romney is signaling that he's not entirely on board with this form of liberalism.

The idea of getting people off welfare was an ingenious one under Reagan, effectively rebating their Social Security contributions when they went to work, instead of collecting a check directly from the federal government while unemployed. But it was fundamentally a compromise with liberalism, and the Earned Income Tax Credit later took on a life of its own, being notably expanded under Bill Clinton and under George W. Bush. Combined with the Child Tax Credit, the two credits represent transfer payments far in excess of the cost of the mortgage interest deduction, the drumbeat against which gets louder by the day. To take away the mortgage interest deduction would yield the government about $80 billion a year in new revenue. But eliminating the two tax credits would end a direct federal government expenditure in excess of $110 billion a year.

If you want to know in what world liberals like Nancy Pelosi under a liberal president like Barack Obama would find it thinkable to consent to a deliberate underfunding of Social Security, liberalism's signature program, by rolling back payroll taxes to help the working poor during the Great Recession, look to Ronald Reagan, who did basically the same thing for poor people through the EITC way back in the 1980s. In making Social Security contributions rebateable to the working poor, Reagan was nothing if not a liberal trendsetter.

Another innovation and accommodation with liberalism by Ronald Reagan was EMTALA, part of the tax reform of 1986, which made it the law that emergency rooms had to provide services regardless of ability to pay. That unfunded mandate costs approximately only $50 billion a year today. I say "only" because lying about the severity of that problem became the heart of the healthcare debate which gave us ObamaCare. The Heritage Foundation may have authored the idea of the individual healthcare mandate in 1989, but once again it was Ronald Reagan who paved the way and provided the cover for accommodating what eventually became ObamaCare's liberal tyranny.

Romney's remarks also question George Bush's two-state solution to peace in Israel, which is nothing but another unrealistic aspiration of liberalism which thinks you can put a chicken and a hungry snake in the same pen and enjoy a quiet Sunday afternoon. To this Romney wisely prefers the unsteady truce of the status quo. In doing so his realism is shining through.

Mitt Romney's looking better all the time, and conservatives should reconsider whether voting for him is such a bad idea after all. 

To Be An American Liberal Means You Think You're Superior, Especially To The White Homelands

"No European country would have elected a black man. I can't believe it happened. I think it's fantastic, like a step on the moon."

-- Randy Newman (here and here)

(Hey honey! What's that smell?)

Chicoms Have Biden's Back: "The guards too of a king are citizens, a tyrant's foreigners."

So says Aristotle in the Politics.

And Medvedev has Obama's back.

Housing Values Gained Most Under Clinton, Lost Most Under Obama Since WWII

"I honor you. I do!"

The following shows the percentage gain or loss in the Case Shiller Home Price Index values December over December for the presidents since WWII, ranked best to worst.

The overall gain or loss is calculated from the December of the election year to the December of the year leaving office, which then is divided by either 4 years or 8 years to arrive at an annualized score. In the case of Obama performance is calculated over 3.5 years (through June 2012).

Factoring out the housing bubble which built under Clinton and collapsed under Bush/Obama would give best performance to Reagan and worst to Bush The Elder, but it is what it is. Slick Willie rides again!

Clinton                    +2.22 percent

Reagan                    +1.43 percent

Carter                      +1.28 percent

Truman                   +  .92 percent

Bush The Younger +  .87 percent

Eisenhower             +  .78 percent

Nixon/Ford             +  .05 percent

JFK/LBJ                  -  .57 percent

Bush The Elder      - 2.72 percent

Obama                    -3.69 percent

Even The Pollsters Hate Your Mortgage Interest Deduction

Seen here at RasmussenReports.com.

Case-Shiller Home Price Index Updated For 2012 At Multpl.com: Dead Cat Bounce

The Case-Shiller Home Price Index at multpl.com has been updated for Q1 and Q2 2012, showing the housing nadir at 124 in March 2012, from which as of the end of June the increase is 6.8 percent to 133.

See the chart and tables here.

I don't believe it is anything but a dead cat bounce, which may indeed go higher because of QE3, but it is not the sign of a fundamental change like the one which occurred in 1997, nor for that matter like the one in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Housing values remain in the high range of historical post-war experience and need to fall further.

Obama has had no commitment to fixing housing, playing around the edges of the issue, and Romney plans to do nothing but let the market fix it, which is probably the best thing to do, as long as he doesn't fiddle with current tax arrangements affecting housing.

The tax changes introduced in 1997 need to find their equilibrium without more interference. The federal government needs to firmly express its commitment to all current tax arrangements affecting housing, including the mortgage interest deduction, in order to calm the housing market and give homeowners, buyers, sellers and financiers the confidence to move forward on a solid basis.

Markets hate uncertainty about rules! 

US Gross Public Debt Grew Most Under Reagan, Least Under Truman Since WWII

The record of Ronald Reagan for increasing the US gross public debt is so bad in the post-war era it is a veritable outlier compared to everyone else.

It represents the price this country paid for hefty tax cuts at the same time defense spending was increased to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Conservatism as understood by Ronald Reagan was primarily anti-communist, not fiscal. This is more in keeping with the Democrat Party of the time which he abandoned as communist influence over it grew through the labor unions. Along with the rest of his record, it is arguable that Ronald Reagan out-liberaled the liberals in many respects, making the Republican Party the home of liberals while the Democrat Party got radicalized by the so-called progressives.

Maybe Mitt Romney had a good reason not to think of himself as a follower of Reagan back in the 1990s. This country could use a Republican in the mold of Eisenhower again to restore some credibility to the Republican Party from the fiscal side.

The 170 percent increase in the public debt metric over an 8 year period under Reagan makes his predecessor Jimmy Carter look almost moderate by comparison, who racked up a 40 percent increase in 4. And Bush The Younger was actually in the very mold of fiscally liberal Ronald Reagan, cutting Clinton's tax increases and increasing spending on The War On Terror as well as Drugs For Seniors. Bush The Younger's 99 percent increase in the debt over 8 years comes out to roughly 12.38 percent per year, but it must be remembered that some of Obama's emergency spending in early 2009 became part of Bush's fiscal record, which ended October 31, 2009, another price of electoral defeat. The winners write the history.

Harry Truman narrowly beats out his successor Dwight Eisenhower for being the king of fiscal rectitude, posting an 11 percent increase in the debt in 4 years with Ike logging 23 percent over 8 years.

The numbers on which I relied for the following come from usgovernmentdebt.us, but not for Barack Obama, for whom I relied on the very latest figures available from treasurydirect.gov, which regrettably go back only through 1993. The percentage average annual increase in the debt shown below is for illustration purposes only since the percentage increase in the debt is calculated from beginning of the fiscal period to the end, not for each individual year. Multiply by 4 or 8 to get the actual figure for the term of office (but shown values are rounded, and Obama's record will not be complete until October 31, 2013, over a year from now, in which case multiply by 3).

Reagan                     21.25 percent

Bush The Younger  12.38 percent

Nixon/Ford              11.75 percent

Obama                     11.64 percent

Bush The Elder       11.50 percent

Carter                      10.00 percent

Clinton                      4.50 percent

Kennedy/LBJ           4.38 percent

Eisenhower              2.88 percent

Truman                    2.75 percent

Over time, Republican presidents have averaged a 12 percent annual increase in the debt while in office, while Democrat presidents have averaged almost 6 percent per annum.

Neither record is good, but things are not what they seem in the Republican Party, so-called home of the fiscal conservatives. 

Inflation Was Worst Under Carter, Best Under Eisenhower Since WWII

Average of the annual inflation percent change December over December using CPI from here, with Obama's 2012 August over August (1.7 percent) counted as the fourth full year:

1948-1952 Truman                   2.65 percent

1952-1960 Eisenhower           1.4 percent

1960-1968 Kennedy/LBJ           2.2 percent

1968-1976 Nixon/Ford               6.4 percent

1976-1980 Carter                   10.4 percent

1980-1988 Reagan                    4.3 percent

1988-1992 Bush The Elder        4.2 percent

1992-2000 Clinton                     2.6 percent

2000-2008 Bush The Younger   2.4 percent

2008-2012 Obama                     2.2 percent.

Democrat presidents do slightly better on inflation than do Republican: 3.55 percent per annum vs. 3.69 percent, which is about 3.8 percent better on average.

But this isn't saying much, except that when it comes to your money, there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between the two political parties. Both have agreed on policies to trash the buying power of the dollar. That's the real enemy: the liberal consensus to impoverish the people through monetarism.

On average, post-war presidents have done a terrible job managing inflation, which is up 841 percent in the 64 years between 1948 and 2012. You might even say that inflation is their policy. By contrast, inflation jumped 146 percent in the 35 years between 1913 and 1948. The post-war liberal consensus has been nearly 6 times harder on the American people than the prior period.

Both parties need to be neutered. 

Obama Ranks Worst For GDP, Kennedy/LBJ Best Since World War II

Average of quarterly reports of annualized GDP, November on November (Obama to date):

1948-1952 Truman                    4.9 percent

1952-1960 Eisenhower              3.2 percent

1960-1968 Kennedy/LBJ          5.0 percent

1968-1976 Nixon/Ford              3.1 percent

1976-1980 Carter                       3.0 percent

1980-1988 Reagan                     3.6 percent

1988-1992 Bush The Elder        2.2 percent

1992-2000 Clinton                     3.9 percent

2000-2008 Bush The Younger  2.0 percent

2008-2012 Obama                     0.8 percent