TNR Notices Obama's Recovery Benefitted Only Elites

Well, what else would you expect from a national socialist? (Obama silly, not TNR).

Tim Noah, here:

"The biggest gainers in 2011 were the bottom half of the top one percent, i.e., those making between $358,000 and $545,000. They saw their incomes increase, on average, by 1.70 percent (not much to write home about, but you've got to put a weak recovery somewhere)."

Fewer than 1 million Americans earned net compensation for Social Security purposes in that range in 2011.

Investors.com Agrees With Us: GDP Under Obama The Worst Since WWII

So Jeffrey Anderson for Investors.com, here:

"According to the BEA, average annual real GDP growth during Obama's first term was a woeful 0.8%. To put Obama's mind-bogglingly low number in perspective, consider this: It was less than half the tally achieved during Bush's second term. It was barely a quarter of the tally achieved under President Carter. It was the worst tally achieved during any presidential term in the past 60 years."

We told you so already last October, here, in "Obama Racks Up Worst GDP Record In Post-War Period":

"But Obama comes in with a pathetic, ridiculous average report of GDP over 16 quarters of just 0.86%, over twice as bad as Bush."

Pope Resigns In Latin, UK Tabloid Can't Spell In English.

Story here.

The word is "incredulity".

How fitting an English tabloid can't spell it, since the English word is derived directly from the Latin "incredulus" for "not believing".

The cardinals in assembly, many of whom understood no Latin themselves, didn't understand what was happening:

"He announced his resignation in Latin to a meeting of Vatican cardinals this morning, saying he did not have the 'strength of mind and body' to continue leading more than a billion Roman Catholics worldwide. ... Several cardinals did not even understand what Benedict had said during the consistory, said the Reverend Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman.

"Others who did were stunned.

"A cardinal who was at the meeting said: ‘We listened with a sense of incredulity as His Holiness told us of his decision to step down from the church that he so loves.’"

Well, there you go. A Pope "steps down from the church".

Dare we say, "Welcome, sir"?

Thanks for nothing, Jim Cramer

Flashback to Jim Cramer, Monday, 10/06/2008 ("Take Your Money Out Right Now"):

“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”

-- Jim Cramer, Monday morning, October 6, 2008 (before the market open)

The Friday before that outrageous, irresponsible advice was nationally televised on NBC's Today Show, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) had slumped to 26.62 from 30.90 two weeks before, not quite 14%. After his Monday call, however, the fund, a proxy for the whole market, dropped nearly 18% in that one week alone, to 21.85, on its way to its 16.60 low in March 2009. TARP, by the way, was signed into law also on that Friday before Jim opened his BIG mouth the next Monday morning.

Four years and four months since that fateful day in October 2008, VTSMX has bounced back to reach a new all time high of 38.13 as of Friday, February 8, 2013.

Your $36,700 in early October 2008 would be worth $57,300 today, a gain of 56%, if you had ignored Jim's advice.

THANKS FOR NOTHING, JIM. Not only did I need the $36,700, I needed the $20,600 gain.

Of course, Jim technically has until October of this year to be vindicated, but that presupposes a market crash from here of at least 36% to start cutting into that original pile of money I needed. But hey, I needed it, so it's not there, so no worries, right?

And what's Jim saying last week?

“We have a genuine, honest to goodness, bona fide bull market here,” Cramer said Tuesday.   

Look out below.

Gov. Snyder Is Nuts: Gas Taxes In Michigan Are Already 6th Highest In America

Michigan in January 2013 had the SIXTH highest overall gasoline taxes in the nation, and Gov. Snyder is talking about raising them higher still to fix the roads. He is quite clearly nuts.

The excise tax on gasoline is already double the rate you would pay in sales tax on a box of Kleenex or a roll of toilet paper and is one of the most regressive taxes in the state and in the country. The excise tax on gasoline penalizes the working poor the most who depend on their cars to get to their crummy jobs, if they are lucky enough to have one. And Governor Snyder only wants to make it worse.

Here are the top six states for combined federal, state, and local gasoline taxes as of January 2013:

New York:   69.0 cents per gallon

California:   67.1 cents

Hawaii:        65.5 cents

Connecticut: 63.4 cents

Illinois:         57.5 cents

Michigan:     57.1 cents.

The federal portion EVERYWHERE is fixed at 18.4 cents per gallon, so that means Michigan already takes 38.7 cents out of your pocket every time you put a gallon of gas in your car.

Today's average price for gasoline in Michigan is $3.743, meaning the base price at the pump is $3.172, including all profits and costs before the taxes are applied. That means the federal tax of 18.4 cents represents a federal excise tax on gas of 5.8%, and that your Michigan excise tax on gasoline is a whopping 12.2%, more than twice the sales tax rate of 6%. The average sales tax nationwide is just 5.04%.

Michigan is one state which bears the full brunt of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, resulting in road workers getting top dollar. Funny how we have some of the worst roads in the country in exchange for that. Maybe the governor should spend more time trying to figure that out before picking the taxpayers pockets again.

If the country needs anything, it is a tax cut on gasoline. The national average tax is 48.8 cents a gallon. Backing out the federal portion, that means the states on average are taking 9.3% on gasoline, a tax rate 85% higher than the average state sales tax rate.

Poverty Guidelines 2013

As shown here.

Poverty Thresholds 2012

As shown here.

In Bond Debacles Of 1994/1999, Net Asset Values Fell About 10%

In the bond debacle of 1993-1994, the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index fund saw a decline in the net asset value of 11.6%, falling from 10.35 to 9.15.

In a similar episode between 1998 and 2000, the net asset value plunged from 10.43 to 9.46, a decline of 9.3%.

The Model For All American Authoritarians Is Pres. Lincoln

So Ralph Peters, here:

"But no president should murder American citizens. Tell it to Abe Lincoln, Hollywood’s celebrity-president of the season, who invaded the South (which had not even threatened acts of terror). The result? Perhaps 750,000 dead Americans. I believe Lincoln was our greatest president after Washington, but he wasn’t just about emancipation."

Funny how emancipation for 4 million black people required the deaths of 750,000 and the repression of liberties of millions ever after.

Well, at least he's honest about The War of Northern Aggression. And Lincoln was a murderer. I'm glad we cleared that up.

One key to surviving in the future will be making sure we don't all move to the same geographic location. Another is refusing to wear the Star of David. You know a third.

Bush Paved The Way For Obama's Insane Imperial Claim He Can Kill You

If you still harbor the slightest loyalty to either George Bush or Barack Obama after reading this withering, eviscerating critique of what's happened to our liberties under these two ne'er-do-wells by noted American lefty Glenn Greenwald for The UK Guardian here, then the future truly is hopeless.

From the concluding paragraph:

"[W]e have the current president asserting the power not merely to imprison or eavesdrop on US citizens without charges or trial, but to order them executed - and to do so in total secrecy, with no checks or oversight. If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable."

He must know that when the purge starts under a future American Caesar, his ilk will be among the first to go.

Good Grief, Bulgaria Grew Better Than The US Last Quarter

h/t TradingEconomics.com

Liberals Everywhere (and libertarian elites) Sneer With Doyle McManus: How Dare You Live In A Bigger House?

 

 

 

 

 

Today's liberal sneer comes from Doyle McManus for, you guessed it, The LA Times, here:

But don't take it from me. Take it from the economists at the Mercatus Center, a mostly conservative think tank at Virginia's George Mason University. ... "Recent empirical research suggests that the mortgage interest deduction increases the size of homes purchased but not the overall rate of homeownership," they wrote. ... You can be sure that home builders and Realtors, whose businesses thrive on big houses and high prices, will push back hard against any proposal for change. ... The mortgage interest deduction subsidizes big houses and bigger mortgages, but that's not a good use of tax dollars. Its benefits flow disproportionately to the wealthy and do nothing for the working poor.

In other words, God forbid that modestly incomed people with big families should live in the same comfortable digs as the elites. No, the only thing suitable for them is something small and cramped in keeping with their station in life. The "Realtors" is a nice touch, with a capital "R", the evil purveyors of this excess and offense against the crabbed liberal view of life. We have met the enemy, and he works for Remax. Puritanism still lives, my friends, in the indignant hearts of the America's liberals.

George Mason University, for its part, is a libertarian bastion, not a conservative one, and being socially liberal, libertarians are ever helpful to one side and one side only: liberalism. Make no mistake about it, the societal decision long ago to subsidize home ownership is a by-product of the conservative consensus of yesterday. That consensus recognized that the basic social unit was the family, defined as a husband, wife and children, the incubator for the transmission of the values of our civilization, and that shaping tax policy to support it materially was not only in the best interests of the present, but of the future.

The people who attack that now are either dimwits, or enemies. 

Theoretical Oil Investing Years Since 1980 According To The Gold/Oil Ratio

Theoretically according to the gold/oil ratio, oil investing years might include any year when the gold/oil ratio rose above 15, that is, when the price of an ounce of gold was "more expensive" than 15 barrels of oil, say about 25 barrels as in 1998, indicating that the price of oil was a bargain relative to gold:

1980  16.37

1986  25.10

1987  25.51

1988  29.39 ($14.87/barrel)

1989  20.81

1990  16.54

1991  17.94

1992  17.86

1993  21.49

1994  24.52

1995  22.91

1996  18.95

1997  17.45

1998  24.71 ($11.91/barrel)

1999  16.86

2009  18.17

2010  17.20

2011  18.06

2012  19.76
2013  15.71

You'll notice very few ads on the radio, on the internet, or generally, for oil. You don't have to sell something that's on sale. Gold ads proliferate for a reason: Gold is too expensive, but the mother of idiots is always pregnant, providing another customer.  

Theoretical Gold Investing Years Since 1980 Using Gold/Oil Ratio

Theoretically according to the gold/oil ratio, gold investing years might include any year when the gold/oil ratio dipped below 15, that is, when the price of oil was more expensive, making an ounce of gold "cheaper" than 15 barrels of oil, say 9 barrels instead of 15 as in 2005 and 2008:

1981  13.13

1982  11.91

1983  14.63

1984  13.11

1985  11.97

2000  10.19

2001  11.78 (gold $271.04/ounce, lowest average annual price for gold since 1980 to date)

2002  13.58

2003  13.12

2004  10.95

2005    8.91 (gold $444.74/ounce)

2006  10.35

2007  10.83

2008    9.53.

Not coincidentally, Vanguard launched both its energy fund, VGENX, and its precious metals fund, VGPMX, on May 23, 1984 when it was time to invest in gold and avoid oil. But if you had invested $10,000 in the energy fund that year, by May 31, 2008 you'd have in excess of $352,000. The precious metals fund did much less well, almost reaching $107,000 over the same period.

Charting The Dollar And The Gold/Oil Price Ratio

Create a graph

Is it just me or is there no real correlation going on between any of these?

A Rationale For Ending The Tax On Corporate Profits

John Steele Gordon provides a helpful survey of the history of American taxation, here, including the chronically avoided topic of how the tax on corporate profits (ruled constitutional as an excise tax "on the privilege of doing business as a corporation") was meant to be a temporary tax on the rich:

In the first decade of the 20th century, the stock of corporations was owned almost entirely by the rich. So taxing corporate profits was, in a very real sense, taxing the rich. Congress passed the legislation and in 1911 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the tax was constitutional. ...

Unfortunately, the [subsequent] personal income tax did not replace the corporate income tax that had originally been intended only as a stopgap. Nor did Congress integrate the two taxes so that income, whether corporate or personal, was only taxed once. The two taxes simply ignore each other as if corporations are owned by Martians, not people.

At the tax levels of the early 20th century, the harm was inconsequential. But when tax levels rose dramatically to fund the great wars that soon followed the personal income tax, the pressure to legally avoid taxes rose equally. As a result, the two separate, uncoordinated tax systems became a uniquely powerful engine of complexity as accountants and lawyers have played the two systems off each other and Congress has tried, unsuccessfully, to close or regulate the resulting “loopholes.” ...

The two income taxes have been the main reason that the tax code has exploded to a 4-million-word incomprehensible mess.

Global Warming Skepticism Bothers CNBC More Than Calling ObamaCare Fascist?

For quite some time now CNBC has chosen to showcase Whole Foods' co-founder John Mackey for his global warming opinions rather than for his characterization of ObamaCare as fascist. So many targets, so little room in a headline.

From the story:

As for regulation to reduce global warming, he said, “We can probably eliminate poverty on the planet earth in the next 50 years if we will just continue to follow the tenets of free enterprise capitalism to the greatest extent possible. So I just don't want to see that change.”

Mackey’s taken some heat for some of his other publicly stated opinions. In a recent interview on NPR, he characterized President Obama’s health care legislation, ‘Obamacare’ as “more like fascism.” He backpedaled in subsequent interviews.

This Is A Depression, Says Dem. Billionaire Mort Zuckerman

"We believe we live in more normal times—and we do not. Millions of people today are experiencing exactly the same struggle as the millions did in the Great Depression. They can't find work. They depend on government and philanthropy. They live on hope denied. ...

"The reality is, we are experiencing a modern-day Depression. It is harder to find work than it has been in any previous economic recovery period. ...

"The Pew Research Center reports that for the first time in the post-World War II era, middle-class families finished the decade significantly poorer in terms of household net worth—which is down almost 40 percent since 2007—and with lower incomes than a decade earlier. This has hit the middle class harder than any other group. According to Pew, one third of Americans now identify themselves as lower class or lower middle class, a deterioration since 2008 when one quarter identified themselves that way. ...

"We are living through a breakdown of the great American jobs machine. This is not a recovery. Annual GDP growth in 2010 and 2011 averaged a mere 2.4 percent; in 2012, GDP growth slowed to 1.8 percent. In other words, cumulative growth for the last 11 quarters was just 6.8 percent, less than half the 15.2 percent average growth in GDP after previous recessions over a similar period of time. This is the slowest growth rate following all 11 post-World War II recessions. ...

"No recession since the end of World War II has been as deep or as long as this one, severely testing the optimism, confidence, and animal spirits that typify the temper of America. The question of the hour is how can we find a way to avoid becoming a low-wage, part-time country."

Read the full story, "How We Can End Our Modern-Day Depression," from Mort Zuckerman, here. 

Wily Democrats Ramped Up Spending Baseline Almost 18% In 2009

The Tax Policy Center here provides a useful history in pdf format of federal outlays and revenues going back to 1940.

After taking complete control of the federal purse strings in January 2009 with the election of President Obama, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate proceeded to ramp up federal spending almost 18% in 2009 compared to 2008, from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. You can see from the chart that expenditures have continued at that new, higher level ever since, despite the fact that revenues have not recovered. Is this the height of irresponsibility, or what? It certainly is one of the more baneful consequences of one party Democrat rule. Now you understand why Democrats won't pass budgets. Continuing this excess using continuing spending resolutions keeps their names out of the papers.

You'll notice on the revenue side for 2008 and 2009 that the government's income from taxes of all sorts declined almost 17% while these expenditures were being dramatically increased at nearly the same rate, opening up a gigantic fissure in the government fiscal landscape. Revenues declined by $419 billion between 2008 and 2009 while expenditures increased $535 billion. The revenues declined due to the bursting of the housing bubble, the ensuing financial panic and the massive unemployment which followed. Nearly 11.31 million Americans lost their full time jobs between November 1, 2007 and December 1, 2009. People who don't work don't pay taxes. With federal outlays already running over $450 billion in excess of revenues, you can understand why the deficit in 2009 swelled to over $1.4 trillion, and continues elevated at that level every year since. Deficits for fiscal years 2009-2012 will top well over $5 trillion in the end. At the Bush-level of deficit spending, the number would have been closer to $3.5 trillion.

In exchange for that astounding liability we have fat bankers not prosecuted for their crimes; bigger banks more dangerous than ever; fat government salaries at every level compared to the private sector; crony capitalism in banking, autos and healthcare; 5 million homes repossessed in seven years; over 12 million officially unemployed; over 2 million per year leaving the labor force for Social Security disability, reduced lifestyles, poverty, or retirement; nearly 48 million on food stamps; GDP struggling to average 1% per year under Obama, the worst performance in 65 years; interest rates near zero destroying returns on retirement capital; an exploding wave of reduced work in the form of impermanent contract and part-time labor; and on and on.

And what's hot on the web right now?

"Where's my refund?" 

High Taxes On Imports A Chief Cause Of The Civil War

So says Michael Sivy for Time, here:

The income tax has always been hated – but so were the taxes it replaced. In Colonial America and the early U.S., taxes were typically on goods like sugar, tea, or whiskey (which triggered the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791). Other taxes were on land or were poll taxes (which was a flat amount per person and had nothing to do with voting). Later on, there were high custom duties on imports, which were one of the chief causes of the Civil War because they pushed up the prices of manufactured goods, helping the North but hurting the agrarian South. Real estate taxes were always extremely unpopular and still are.

It wasn't until 1863 when The War of Northern Aggression was going badly for Lincoln that it became officially about slavery.

Under Obama 2.1 Million/Year Left Labor Force, Under Bush 1.3 Million/Year

Those not in the labor force reached a new record high level on January 1, 2013: 89.008 million. On 1-1-01 there were 70.008 million not in the labor force. On 1-1-09, 80.507 million. What that all means is that under Bush people left the labor force at a rate of 1.302 million per year, but under Obama it rose dramatically to a rate of 2.125 million per year, 63% higher than under Bush.

Believe it or not, under Ronald Reagan, whose unemployment record had been the worst in the post-war period until Obama, just 147,000 left the labor force ANNUALLY, for a TOTAL of only 1.176 million in eight years. Under Clinton the rate rose almost four times that, to 566,000 annually.

Personal Defense Weapon

Department of Homeland Security says so, here.

The Obamas Are Sweet Potato Lovers

From Boston.com, here:

The first lady has described her family as sweet potato lovers. This fall, she harvested the potatoes from the White House Kitchen Garden, sometimes with the help of children from the Bancroft and Kimball elementary schools in Washington.

"Sweet Potato Tastes Good. I Like It."

Unemployment: Remember How You Felt In January 2009? Things Are The Same.

So why should you feel better if we're back to where we were when Obama took office?

Just because that unemployment sadist with the drill has stopped boring holes in your skull is no reason for optimism, is it?

Or maybe it is:

"Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness. The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome."

Unemployment Rate Ticks Up To 7.9%: Obama Remains Solidly In Last Place Since 1948

Full pdf from the BLS here.

The average report of unemployment under Obama for all months of 2009 through 2012 comes to 8.98%, the very worst record since 1948.

Obama's nearest competitor for worst performance during the period was Ronald Reagan. For all months of 1981 through 1988 Reagan's average report of unemployment was 7.53%, nearly 20% better than Obama's. Under George W. Bush, whom Obama blames for everything, unemployment averaged just 5.27% for the 8 years 2001-2008, one of the five best records since 1948.

The worst stretch of unemployment since 1948 gets even longer under Obama with today's report at 7.9%. 

Chart here.

Uh Oh. Peter Schiff Is SELLING $3 Million In .5 Ounce Gold Maple Leaf Coins

As he promotes OWNERSHIP.

Wily devil.

Story here.

Obama Shrugs, Sunsets His (Mostly Ignored) Jobs Council

Safely reelected, Obama's Jobs Council sunsets this week, even though millions still can't find work:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will let his jobs council expire this week without renewing its charter, winding down one source of input from the business community even as unemployment remains stubbornly high. ...

Obama met with the council only a handful of times. During the last meeting, in February 2012 . . . 

Read the rest, here.

Why Obama's Done Nothing To Restore Jobs And Growth

It's not his thang, baby, dontcha remember? He told you so almost four years ago:

"Nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry [about] the financial system."

-- President Obama, March 2009

Jobs and GDP are an annoyance to Obama, as are stocks, banking and Bibi Netanyahu, and boy is he ever proving it.

What's The Difference Between GDP Growth Of +3.1% And -0.1%?

What's the difference between GDP growth of +3.1% and -0.1%?

If you said 3.2%, you are a dumb ass.

3.2 is the spread in percentage points, not the percentage difference.

Think of the measurement, in this case of the GDP  expressed as a rate, as steps on a ladder, the rungs of which each represent 0.1. You are standing way up there on rung 3.1 in Q3 2012, from which you descend during Q4 all the way down to rung 0.1, then to rung 0.0, and finally to rung -0.1, if you can imagine a ladder with zero and negative rungs.

How many steps did you take? The answer is 32. That is a long way down from where you were. Since each step has a value of 0.1, 32 x 0.1 = 3.2, the value of the spread.

Now that you know the value of the spread, you can calculate the percentage difference between the two measurements the spread spans, otherwise called the percentage drop in this instance. This is where people, even in the financial media, get confused, because they have to figure out the percentage difference between rates, which by definition are already expressed as percentages. But really it is not difficult, no more difficult than calculating the percentage difference between two quantities of apples, oranges or any other things you can enumerate. Forget that they are percentages you are calculating the percentage difference between in this instance, and imagine instead that they are the number of times Red Forman kicked your ass last week vs. this week, or whatever else you like.

Once you know the spread between the two things, you say to yourself: "What percent of the higher number is the spread?" You ask it that way because you want to know how much you declined in percentage terms. (You'd ask the question of the lower number if it had been an increase). Since percent is the amount per hundred, you turn that word problem into an equation: x divided by 100 (what percent means the amount divided by 100), multiplied by (of) 3.1 (the higher number of 3.1 or -0.1, the place from which you climbed down to -0.1) = (is) 3.2 (the spread).

You write it this way:

x                 3.1  
---       x     -----     =    3.2
100              1

Another way to say the same thing is:

3.1x
------  = 3.2
100

Next you begin to isolate x by multiplying each side of the equation by 100, which gives you 3.1x = 320.

Then all you have to do is divide each side by 3.1 to find the value of x. 320 divided by 3.1 = 103.2258. And what was that again? The amount per 100, otherwise called the percentage. So the answer is 103.2%. That's how much the GDP growth rate declined from Q3 to Q4. That's a lot bigger difference between the GDP numbers than 3.2%, isn't it? 3.2% is puny and insignificant on top of being just plain wrong. 103.2% is the stunning truth, and an arrestingly important warning.

In other words, from Q3 to Q4, we wiped out all the growth rate, 100% of it, and a little bit more. We were up the ladder at 3.1, and walked it all the way back 31 steps to the bottom, and then some, one more step, below ground level so to speak.

Now if we could just get people like Rush Limbaugh to understand this, maybe more people in the country would begin to understand the enormity of our problems. Unfortunately for us, the enormity of our problems begins with the fact that most of the voters can't do even this simple math. If they could, they wouldn't have reelected the guy whose slogan was Forward because they would have understood that he doesn't know which direction that is, let alone how to get there.

Obama Has Had 3 Recessions In His First Term, And May Get A 4th To Start His Second

If a recession is two quarters back to back with GDP declines, the second decline worse than the first, then Obama has had three recessions in his first term, and is likely to begin his second term with a fourth recession. "A fall in GDP in two successive quarters" remains the dictionary definition of a recession despite what trimmers everywhere say.

After Q4 2009, GDP declined from 4.0 to 2.3 and 2.2 in the first two quarters of 2010.

After Q3 2010, GDP declined from 2.6 to 2.4 and 0.1 in the last quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011.

After Q4 2011, GDP declined from 4.1 to 2.0 and 1.3 in the first two quarters of 2012.

That makes three recessions at the ends of each of the first three years of Obama's first term, and the pattern appears to be repeating again at the end of the fourth year, going from 3.1 to -0.1 from the third quarter of 2012 to the fourth. With taxes rising dramatically in 2013 from the payroll tax reset, the increase in taxes on the rich, and the new ObamaCare taxes, and with spending cuts through sequestration looming, I'd say the odds favor a 4peat on the recession front because these factors are very negative for GDP, as are the employment rules for ObamaCare which will subdue incomes and thus spending.

Given the pattern of repeated recessions beginning already in 2010, what we have been going through since 2008 when GDP declined 0.3 and 2009 when GDP declined 3.1, a depression in fact all by itself, is actually better called an extended depression even though annually speaking 2012 represents a climb out of the pattern. Unless, that is, Q1 2013 isn't worse than -0.1 and future revisions to 2012 GDP aren't downward.

I wouldn't bet on it.

ObaMao Breaks A Few GDP Eggs To Transform The Country

After four years of the worst GDP in post-war history, are you starting to get the feeling that it's intentional?

"At present, our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic 'authorities' and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure that do not correspond to the socialist economic base, so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system."

-- The Decision, 1966

US GDP Growth Is So Bad Greece Is Doing Better Than We Are

h/t TradingEconomics.com

George Bush's GDP Sucked But Was 2.5 Times Better Than Obama's

2.04% on average for 8 years then vs. 0.825% for four years now.

Markets Shrug At Terrible GDP Report, Hang On Words Of Federal Reserve

Faced with the worst GDP report since Q2 2009, the markets shrug. What really counts for markets is whether the Federal Reserve this afternoon will announce some new intervention to boost the economy. Markets ignore reality, and hang on the words of the bankers. This is not free market capitalism. These are not free markets. These are rigged markets. This is corporatism. This is fascism. It favors an elite few in exchange for their support, while the majority of Americans gets by on crumbs.

Under Obama GDP Has Never Been Worse Since 1948. The 2012 Winner Is A Loser.

Measured from Q4 2008 through Q4 2012, President Obama's average quarterly report of GDP is a stunningly low +0.865% over the 17 quarter period. Measured for the 16 quarters of 2009 through 2012, the average quarterly report is +1.475%.

Measured annually 2009-2012 President Obama's average annual GDP increase is a paltry +0.825%. Bush's average annual report of +2.04% over the eight years from 2001-2008 had been the worst record in post-war history. Remarkably, that was almost 2.5 times better than what we've got now, the worst recorded GDP growth since World War II.

The latest GDP data is available from the BEA in pdf here. 

Stunning GDP Drop Stunning To Everyone But David Rosenberg

(This post has been corrected).

Before the election, here, David "Rosie" Rosenberg actually predicted a negative GDP print in Q4 due to Hurricane Sandy. That GDP actually came in at a only slightly negative 0.1% is beside the point. In Q3 2012 the annualized rate of growth was reported as +3.1%. That means that during Q4 the annualized rate of growth hit a brick wall to decline by over 100%. If all it takes is a category 1 hurricane to send the greatest economy in the world negative, we are in sorry shape indeed.

Busted GDP. Busted Inaugural JumboTron. Busted Presidency. Busted Country.

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Hits All Time High Today at 37.80

Wow.

Sen. Marco Rubio Avoids Talking About Defacto Amnesty On Rush Limbaugh

And Rush avoided bringing up the subject. All Rubio said was that we have "an existing problem":

Look, I think there's this false argument that's been advanced by the left that conservatism and Republicans are anti-immigrant and anti-immigration. And we're not. Never have been. 

On the contrary, we are pro-legal immigration. And we recognize that our legal immigration system needs to be reformed. We also recognize, because conservatism's always been about common sense, that we do have an existing problem that needs to be dealt with in the best way possible.

But it came up on Mark Levin's show, as Washington Watcher noted at VDare, here:

In promoting his amnesty on the Mark Levin show last week, Rubio came up with what appeared to Levin to be a novel argument. Rubio claimed that by not enforcing the law, we currently have a “de facto amnesty”—which will continue unless we support his plan, which involves illegals supposedly paying a fine, community service, learning English and various other bits [of] unenforceable window-dressing. Levin, who has been solid on immigration in the past (and, it should be noted, has not come out in support of Rubio’s amnesty), found this argument compelling. He noted:

"We have de facto amnesty right now. When he said it, it set a light bulb off. Maybe I am a little slow. I said, ‘Well he’s right, we do have de facto amnesty.’ Which is exactly why Obama wants to really do nothing." . . . 

[D]espite Mark Levin’s “light bulb” moment, this argument is not novel. Thus in 2007, John McCain said "For us to do nothing is silent and de facto amnesty."  [GOP Candidates Shy Away From Bush, by Glen Johnson, Associated Press, June 6, 2007]  Even Barack Obama has sold amnesty as a punishment . . ..

It's clear Sen. Rubio is sensitive to negative feedback. He's fine tuning the message for the skulls full of mush out there in order to build the case for the Senate Gang of Eight amnesty plan. But as Washington Watcher says in his article, only the first of several reasons the status quo is preferable is that an outright amnesty will trigger a deluge of illegal immigration to take advantage of it.

The country is already full of unassimilated foreigners, so, pace Sen. Rubio, they represent the reason for conservatives to be against more legal immigration, not just the illegal kind. The law and the law-abiding have been the victims in this charade, not the illegals, and it is they who need to pay. It's about time so-called conservatives started saying so instead of cooking up compromises with the devil.

The AMT Fix Was A "Stunning Development"

From the Fairmark.com Tax Guide for Investors, here:

"Although the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax] fix merely preserves the status quo, for those who follow tax legislation and budget politics this is a stunning development. The need for this measure has been apparent to everyone for many years, but Congress has been unable to deal with the budget implications of a permanent fix and instead has enacted an AMT patch every year or two. How big is the budget impact of a permanent fix? Over the next ten years, this single provision in ATRA [American Taxpayer Relief Act] is estimated to cost the federal treasury over $1.8 trillion dollars. Not a typo."

Speaker Boehner Ripped Off Obama's Shirt. The Pants Are Next.

So says Ralph Benko, rightly, for Forbes, here, quoting Boehner and commenting:

"Who would have ever guessed that we could make 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent? When we had a Republican House and Senate and a Republican in the White House, we couldn’t get that. And so, not bad."

“Not bad” is a resounding understatement. Dealt a weak hand, Boehner managed to 99% outfox, on tax policy, a president who had the massive apparatus of the executive branch, the Senate majority, and a left-leaning national elite media whooping it up for a whopping tax increase. Even more impressively, Boehner pulled it off with steady nerves while under heavy pressure from the anti-spending hawks in his own caucus.

Republicans and especially conservatives still don't appreciate the magnitude of Boehner's achievement, the most important part of which, as Benko says, will turn out to be the new baseline resulting from the permanent fix to the AMT. As The New York Times reported but nobody's talking about, wink wink, the permanent fix to the AMT is going to cost the feds $1.8 trillion over the next ten years. Well, guess who won't be paying that?! And Rush Limbaugh and other dunderheads are complaining that Republicans caved on the principle of tax increases. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Lay down boys, take a little nap. It's 14 miles to the Cumberland Gap. 

More Bonds Held Than Stocks Because There's More Of Them, Silly

John Hussman weighs in with his customary common sense, here:

'Quite simply, the reason that pension funds and other investors hold more bonds relative to stocks than they have historically is that there are more bonds outstanding, relative to stocks, than there have been historically. What is viewed as “underinvestment” in stocks is actually a symptom of a rise in the gross indebtedness of the global economy, enabled and encouraged by quantitative easing of central banks, which have been successful in suppressing all apparent costs of that releveraging.'

His regular Tuesday column is like a weekly appointment with a psychiatrist. The madness of a week melts away under his penetrating illuminations.

Housing: 13 Million Borrowers Can't Move, Easily 25% Of Borrowers

Fully 25% of homeowners with mortgages can't sell because they'd have to "pay in" at closing, owing more than they could get, and cannot or will not do that. So they sit, stuck. Separately reported, after 5 million repossessions in 7 years, there are roughly 50 million mortgages still outstanding.

Diana Olick reports for CNBC, here:

"[T]here are still 10.7 million borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, and an additional 2.3 million who have less than five percent equity in their homes, according to CoreLogic. Those homeowners cannot sell without having to pay into their mortgages, so they are largely stuck in place. First-time home buyers are purchasing at an unusually low rate due to tighter credit standards, and many potential sellers simply don't want to list until prices rise more substantially."

4+ years of Federal Reserve zero interest rate policy hasn't worked to unfreeze the housing market, but it's done a hell of a job reducing income for older Americans.

Americans with capital saved for retirement should be allowed to pay off their mortgages from tax-protected capital without penalty, or, more conservatively, be allowed to bring cash to closing from such funds without penalty in order to close, move on, and "unstick" the market.

Come on Washington, use your imagination!

Oh, I forgot, liberals don't have any.

Warning To Sen. Mitch McConnell: Watch Out For A Libertarian Spoiler

Incumbent Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader in the US Senate, should get ready to face both a Democrat and a libertarian spoiler in his reelection bid.

Libertarians spoiled the senate races for Mourdock in Indiana and for Rehberg in Montana in 2012. So-called Tea Party candidates, Mourdock and Rehberg lost by margins posted to the libertarians' columns in their races. In Montana the libertarian was actually funded by Democrats.

Republicans like Sen. Jim DeMint and Gov. Sarah Palin continue to think, incorrectly, that libertarians are on the Republicans' side. They are not. Gov. Palin in particular has said in the past that she believes it would be a political mistake to alienate libertarians. In saying that, she reveals that she believes Republicans cannot stand on their own. Senator DeMint has said recently that as the new head of the Heritage Foundation he believes it is time to reach out to libertarians to forge an alliance on those things about which Republicans and libertarians agree. It makes one wonder if their own minds aren't divided over whether they are conservatives or libertarians.

Politico reports on the possibility of a libertarian running against McConnell, buried on page 3 of this story about Democrats planning to back a Tea Party candidate:

Liberty for All, a super PAC that put cash behind [Rep. Thomas] Massie and other conservative Republicans, is signaling it’s prepared to spend money to boost a McConnell challenger. One of the group’s leaders, Preston Bates, is a former Democratic operative who worked for Jack Conway, the Democratic candidate who lost to Rand Paul in 2010.

Bates said he left the Democratic Party in 2010, adding that while he personally identifies more with his former party, his year-old group puts money behind viable small government and libertarian-minded conservatives.

“Generally, what we need is to stop electing Republicans that are out of touch with most general election voters,” Bates said.

Libertarians are indeed a subset of the Democrat Party, not a genuine third party. They view themselves as successful not when they stop Democrats from getting elected, but Republicans, as Bates openly states. Democrat money helped a libertarian spoil the race for a Republican challenger to Rep. Giffords in Arizona in 2010, after which she was shot by a deranged libertarian, and in 2012 the Libertarian Party viewed itself as successful because it stopped those Republican candidates for senate in Indiana and Montana.

Sen. McConnell should consider the Democrat threat to back a Tea Party candidate in the Republican primary as a fake to the right. I'd bet rather that the Democrats intend to go left and back a libertarian in the general if possible. That's been their m/o in the past, and likely will be again because it is the more natural for them. When push comes to shove, libertarians jettison economic conservatism for social liberalism, the latter's home being in the Democrat Party.

Why You're A Janitor Or A Taxi Driver With A BA Degree

"[T]he stock of college graduates in the workforce (41.7 million) in 2010 was larger than the number of jobs requiring a college degree (28.6 million)."

Read more about it, here.

Gold To Oil Ratio 2003-2012 Screamed Gold In The Past, Oil In 2012

Year / Average Oil Price / Average Gold Price / Ratio

2003 / $27.69 / $363.38 / 13.12
2004 / $37.41 / $409.72 / 10.95
2005 / $49.93 / $444.74 / 08.91
2006 / $58.30 / $603.46 / 10.35
2007 / $64.20 / $695.39 / 10.83
2008 / $91.48 / $871.96 / 09.53 (dollar low 69.27 on March 18, 2008)
2009 / $53.52 / $972.35 / 18.17
2010 / $71.21 / $1,224.53 / 17.20
2011 / $87.04 / $1,571.52 / 18.06 (dollar low 67.97 on May 2, 2011)
2012 / $84.46 / $1,668.98 / 19.76
2013 / $89.84 / $1,411.23 / 15.71

DHS Wants Assault Weapons For "Personal Defense"

The federal business opportunities website in June solicited bids for 7000 rifles chambered for the popular AR "assault weapon" round and says they are for the "personal defense" of the Dept. of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs, but stipulates "select fire" which means full auto capable. Yeah. Full auto for personal defense. For them, not you. The contract is for up to $9.8 million.

Hypocrites. 

Check it out for yourself, here.

h/t The Blaze (here)

Sarah Palin Is Still A Box Of Rocks

Sarah Palin thinks monetary policy under Obama has been inflationary, and will continue to be, here:

"Predicting the future has never been easier because here we are! Already we see higher taxes, a stagnant economy, the same inflationary monetary policies, Obamacare looming like a dark cloud over small businesses, yet another demand for 'debt ceiling' increases, continued stonewalling about the tragic Benghazi attacks, a Secretary of Defense nominee who has a history of being antagonistic to our ally Israel, and the attack on our Second Amendment rights by an administration that has no respect for the Constitution or the separation of powers."

Let's see.

The CPI level was 174.2 in November 2000. In November 2008 it was 213.074. And in November 2012 it was 231.025.

That means under eight years of George W. Bush inflation was up 22.32%, for an annual factor of 2.79.

Under four years of Obama inflation was up 8.42%, for an annual factor of 2.11.

The difference between the two is that under Obama the rate of CPI increase has been reduced almost 25% compared to Bush.

It should stop being an article of conservatism to ignore the difference, because insisting on being wrong about it won't help sell the other points.

S&P500 Buy And Hold Investors Since October 2007 Are Down 1.14% Per Year

Read it and weep, here.

The real rate of return in the S&P500 from October 2007 through 2012, five years and two months, is negative 1.14% per year with all dividends reinvested. Stories are circulating that individual investors are beginning to get back into the market. With the Shiller p/e above 23, they're going to get what's coming to them, imho. I've been 90% out of the market since late 2006, and intend to stay that way until a genuine buying opportunity arises, but this sure as hell isn't one of them.

The story is even worse going back to January 2000: real rate of return down 0.56% per year for 13 years January 2000 through 2012.

The S&P500 Is Up 12.31% Per Year In Obama's First Term

You can use the tool which generated this graphic here, anytime you want for anytime you want.

I measure November on November because elections mark the turning point psychologically, which counts for more than anything imho.

Elites have benefitted handsomely under Obama, which is what you would expect from a fascist. If that's too harsh for you, supply "national socialist" or "corporatist".

I reported in September, here, that stock market performance under Obama is the 4th best since Harry Truman, based on incomplete data showing inflation adjusted returns to date. Now that it's the new year, the data is in, but the conclusion is the same. Even though he slips from 12.66% to 12.31% for per annum returns, he's still safely in 4th place behind Truman, Clinton and Eisenhower.

Free market capitalism isn't practised in the United States and hasn't been since at least Woodrow Wilson. The corporatist model in the United States is mediated primarily through banking and the institution known as the Federal Reserve, which attempts to manipulate the economy through control of money, lending and interest rates, rewarding those first in line the most, the bankers, and leaving a few crumbs for the rest of us in a descending pecking order: corporations, unions, insurance companies, etc.  To a lesser extent, the tax code is used to reward friends and punish enemies, which is why it has grown so enormous in size and complicated to follow. The fascists' biggest coup in recent years was the tax reform of 1997 and the banking deregulation of 1999, both under Clinton and Gingrich, which unleashed a torrent of capital stored in decades of the housing stock from which elites skimmed and got very rich. You know it as the housing bubble, the result of the bursting of which has been 5 million homes repossessed and massive unemployment on a scale not scene since FDR. As a socialist, Obama is entirely happy with this arrangement because it offers him political opportunities. Idealism is merely a tool. He uses it to get power and get rich. And like dopes, Americans continue to hand it over, election after election. And some of these prisoners even grow to love their jailers.

The 1932 Dollar Adjusted For CPI Through 2011

The 1932 dollar (when gold was last fixed at $20.67 the ounce) adjusted for CPI through 2011 comes to $16.50 ($1 x 1650%). If you had $20.67 to start in 1932, you'd need $341.06 today to have the identical amount in terms of CPI.

An ounce of gold held since 1932 is worth $1660 right now in 2013, an increase of 8031% since 1932 ($20.67 x 8031%).

Tough choice, right?

Foreign Holdings Of US Treasuries Up Almost 11% Since 2011

Foreign holdings of US Treasury securities is up about 11% from November 2011, when the total outstanding was $5.01 trillion. In November 2012 $5.56 trillion is outstanding, according to the US Treasury, here.

About $548 billion in new monies has thus been lent by foreigners to the US in the twelve months through November 2012.

Federal revenues for fiscal 2012 are estimated at $2.5 trillion, with outlays at $3.8 trillion. That leaves about $750 billion of lending to the feds made up from domestic sources to pay for all the spending.

Reince Priebus Is An Electoral College Fiddler. Get Rid Of Him.

We already have fiddling going on with the National Popular Vote campaign. Now it turns out Reince Preibus, RNC chairman, favors a form of fiddling with the Electoral College of his own, here.

That's three strikes against Reince for me. He did a lousy job in 2012. We did nothing but keep the House, in the worst economy since WWII. He attacked the duly elected candidate for Senate in Missouri. I won't mention Indiana. And now this.

Dump Reince Preibus.