townhall
Matt Vespa
Posted: Dec 22, 2017 4:04 PM
We all know the left wing lurch the Democratic Party has taken over the past for years. You saw that with the energized progressive cohorts that flocked to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the 2016 Democratic primaries. Now, with tax reform done, Democrats are licking their lips. They think they can use this as the ICBM to nuke the Republicans in the midterms, and that could happen, but this is all based on the bill’s bad poll numbers. Analysis and even some publications, like The Washington Post, admit that this bill will cut taxes for 80 percent of Americans over the next eight years. It’s a gamble on both sides. Yet, for Democrats, that also includes explaining why they voted against middle class tax relief, betted against the American worker, and want business in general to fail in order to screw Trump. If this bill becomes more popular, and it’s bound to, and people start seeing more money in their pockets—the defense of this will be, well—less than stellar. You’re already seeing some acknowledgement, like with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who admitted in a radio interview that there are provisions of this tax reform package that will help the people of his state. Manchin voted against the bill.
continue reading
Thank You Mr Vespa, Townhall, and WSJ.
"For What Possible Use Should You Keep Such A Treacherous And Savage Creature?" Marcus Tullius Cicero
Showing posts with label Economics 101. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics 101. Show all posts
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Friday, December 8, 2017
Trump Jobs Numbers Out: Unemployment At 17 Year Low, 2.2 Million New Jobs Since Election, More Americans Working Than Ever
gatewaypundit
Guest post by Joe Hoft
Jobs
According to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, President Trump added a projected 1.9 million jobs in the first eleven months of the year (January through November 2017) and 2.2 million jobs since last year’s election.
The same cannot be said for President Obama’s first eleven months as he lost 4.8 million jobs. Obama was so bad at creating jobs that by the end of his second term he said that jobs were not coming back. This showed in his first eleven months in office because in every month the US lost jobs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, under President Trump more Americans are in the work force than ever before. Over 160 million Americans are working for the first time in US history. President Trump is working hard to bring good paying jobs back to the US and his efforts are showing historic results. ADP reported 40,000
new manufacturing jobs in November. This was the highest reported
monthly amount of new manufacturing jobs in the history of their report!
Unemployment
Also according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the US unemployment rate this year has been below January’s rate every month (January through September 2017.) The unemployment rate in January 2017 was 4.8 percent and by November it was down to 4.1 percent. These are the lowest rates in 17 years.
President Obama on the other hand again moved in the opposite direction. In his first eleven months as President the US unemployment rate increased every month from 7.8 percent in January 2009 to 9.9 percent by November of 2009.
Guest post by Joe Hoft
President Trump’s Economy is Simply “On Fire”.
Job numbers released today through the end of November show an increase of 2.2 million jobs since last years election and an unemployment rate of 4.1 percent. After the same period under Obama, (4.8) million jobs were lost and unemployment skyrocketed to 9.9 percent!
President Trump’s economic results could arguably be the best all time. The stock market is the highest ever and jobs are being created by the thousands.
Jobs
According to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, President Trump added a projected 1.9 million jobs in the first eleven months of the year (January through November 2017) and 2.2 million jobs since last year’s election.
The same cannot be said for President Obama’s first eleven months as he lost 4.8 million jobs. Obama was so bad at creating jobs that by the end of his second term he said that jobs were not coming back. This showed in his first eleven months in office because in every month the US lost jobs.
Unemployment
Also according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the US unemployment rate this year has been below January’s rate every month (January through September 2017.) The unemployment rate in January 2017 was 4.8 percent and by November it was down to 4.1 percent. These are the lowest rates in 17 years.
President Obama on the other hand again moved in the opposite direction. In his first eleven months as President the US unemployment rate increased every month from 7.8 percent in January 2009 to 9.9 percent by November of 2009.
The mainstream liberal media won’t report this, but when looking at the economy and jobs, the billionaire President Trump is providing a tutorial for any former community organizer that might hope to be President some day.
Thank You Mr Hoft and Gateway Pundit.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Graph: Reagan's Recovery Vs, Obama's Recovery
weaselzippers;
Graph: Reagan's Recovery Vs, Obama's Recovery
It’s almost like conservative economic policies work.
. . . Consider these three important comparisons of economic indicators, then and now:- Unemployment was at 10.8% versus 7.7%- Inflation (Consumer Price Index) was at 13.5% versus 2.7%- Interest rates (prime rate) was at 21.5% versus 3.25%In other words, Reagan inherited a bigger mess.
Thank You IJ Review and Zip.
Hmmm, . . . Economic Depression, . . . . Psychiatric Depression, . . . . but it's Genetic, or a Brain Chemical Imbalance, . . .
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Greed
Townhall.com has;
John Stossel
on:
(links and emphasis ours)
On TV, my Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly says, "The
recession was brought on largely by greedy Wall Street corporations."
Give me a break.
Bill's smart. If he believes such things, we who care about
freedom have done a poor job communicating economics.
Blaming problems on "greed" is a mindless cliche.
Yes, Wall Street was greedy -- but that's nothing new. Greed
is a constant. Did you ever turn down a raise? We need a free market because
it restrains greed. Laws against
theft and fraud help, but competition does more. With this election
approaching, and statist, eager-to-regulate candidates in ascent, we need more
Americans to understand this.
The statist left says it's government's job to protect
consumers and help poor people. But greed -- more precisely, the pursuit of
self-interest in the free market -- would work better. The market (if
not corrupted by corporate welfare and bailouts) harmonizes the
interests of diverse people who don't even know each other and might not even
like each other. It motivates them to work hard to serve customers.
When markets are free (alas, ours is not; in America today,
too often people "partner" with politicians and get rich through
government), those who charge too much, or skimp on quality or service, lose
money to competitors who serve people better.
What could be more humane? Nothing has done more than markets
to lift people out of the mud and misery of primitive life.
But progressive blogger Sally Kohn argues: "We all have
a little greed in us. The question is, what values do we hold alongside greed
as a society ... so that we operate for the better good of everyone?"
What values? My vision of the "better good" may be
different from hers. I don't want government to decide for me.
"Property rights constrain self-interest,"
libertarian economist Donald Boudreaux pointed out. "We're all
self-interested. We care more about ourselves, our family and our loved ones
than we care about strangers. ... The problem with government is that it
is the institution that best allows people to grab more than what they deserve."
That's what happened under communism -- and increasingly,
it's happening in America. As Joseph Sobran put it: "'Need' now means
wanting someone else's money. 'Greed' means wanting to keep your own.
'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer.'"
This is a threat to freedom and the route to stagnation.
Kohn rightly objects to "crony capitalism
facilitated by government," but goes on to highlight
government's "positive side ... values of community."
Whoa! "Community" is a loaded word. Statists misuse
it to criticize individualism, as though the two don't coexist, as if, without
government, people don't work together. But this is nonsense. Real communities
emerge organically from individuals who volunteer to come
together for common purpose.
Communities are not created by government edict, which
amounts to a threat of violence against peaceful people. As classical liberals
like Herbert Spencer and F.A. Hayek taught, there is no conflict between
individualism and social cooperation. These are two sides of the same coin of freedom.
Individualists form families, clubs, charities, churches and softball leagues,
and participate in thousands of voluntary communities.
But what about the poor? Kohn said government is needed to
assure equality, just as parents make sure a cake is not unfairly divided among
family members.
"The reality is ... we have fixed resources."
But we don't have fixed resources! Thanks to economic
liberalization, 7 billion people on earth live better than ever. Poverty
decreases. That should prove we don't have fixed resources. Rather than one
cake or a fixed supply of cake, greedy entrepreneurs -- like Bill Gates and
Steve Jobs -- make more and bigger cakes. Everyone gets richer. The producers,
however greedy, are heroes.
Inequality is a product of freedom. When people are free,
some will acquire much more than others. Forty years of reporting taught me
that letting the wealthy indulge their greed protects consumers and helps poor
people much more than government programs do. Just keep them away from
government power.
The pursuit of self-interest -- greed, if you will --
benefits everyone. We should free the market and enjoy the prosperity.
Thank You Townhall and Mr Stossel
"When markets are free (alas, ours is not; in America
today, too often people "partner" with politicians and get rich
through government), those who charge too much, or skimp on quality or service,
lose money to competitors who serve people better."
Contrast That with:
UCSF has;
By Kristen Bole on January
18, 2012
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) received more
research funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) than any other
public institution in 2011 and ranked second among all institutions nationwide,
according to new figures released by the NIH.
The funding helps UCSF continue to perform world-renowned health
sciences research amid state budget cutbacks.
UCSF received 1,056 grants last year, totaling $532.8 million
for research and training, fellowships and other awards. In 2010, UCSF also was
the largest public recipient, with $475.4 million in funding.
The federal funding plays a key role in supporting UCSF’s
graduate-level biomedical enterprise, including research into the genetic,
molecular and cellular basis of diseases, epidemiological and clinical-research
studies, and efforts to develop innovative treatments and cures. That research
has led to four UCSF faculty members receiving the Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine, and has fueled significant advances in biomedical sciences.
“These grants are absolutely essential in supporting the work of
our scientists as they tackle the most pressing questions in the health
sciences,”
Illuminati Psychiatric Bio-Science
said UCSF Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann, MD, MPH. “This broad-based support of UCSF research, in the context of increasingly competitive funds, is testament to the caliber of scientific discovery in each of our schools and the graduate division.”
Illuminati Psychiatric Bio-Science
said UCSF Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann, MD, MPH. “This broad-based support of UCSF research, in the context of increasingly competitive funds, is testament to the caliber of scientific discovery in each of our schools and the graduate division.”
UCSF has ranked among the nation’s top institutions in NIH
funding for more than two decades, as have each of its schools. In 2011, the
UCSF School of Pharmacy received $29.1 million in NIH funding, the most of any
pharmacy school for the 32nd consecutive year. The School of Medicine received
$420.2 million,* while the UCSF schools of Dentistry and Nursing received $19
million and $8.3 million, respectively.
Federal funding also buoys the local and regional economy,
Desmond-Hellmann said, as the scientists purchase materials and instruments and
employ laboratory staff. Other economic engines include patents and scientific
advances generated by NIH-funded research and related industries, such as
biotechnology.
Current NIH data list
the top five recipients of FY 2011 research funding as follows (not including
research contracts or ARRA grants):
Public institutions:
UCSF ($532.8
million)
University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor ($467.4 million)
University of
Washington ($455.8 million)
University of
Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh ($428.2 million)
UC San Diego
($398.0 million)
All institutions:
Johns Hopkins
University ($645.3 million)
UCSF ($532.8
million)
University of
Pennsylvania ($471.5 million)
University of
Michigan at Ann Arbor ($467.4 million)
University of
Washington ($455.8 million)
UCSF is a leading university dedicated to promoting health
worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the
life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. For more
information, visit www.ucsf.edu.
* Excludes $54.4 million in additional NIH support for
multiple research programs.
So, it's Greed which is a Character Flaw in the Private
Sector, but not in the Public Sector, ..... ?
And everybody's OK with this? Because the NIH has its own
printing presses which Create all of that money NIH keeps sending to UCSF,
Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


