In Case You Missed It Obama Outperfoms Reagan on Economic Indicators

I didn't catch this from late last week, but then, I'm not sure you did either. So, here you go. . .

[Excerpt]

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America’s latest jobs report covering August. And it’s a disappointment. The economy created an additional 142,000 jobs last month. After six consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August. . .

Read more at: Forbes

Image from source, liberal bastion, Forbes.

America Still Remembers: Bush to Blame for Economy Crash

Image from source, TPM

I don't generally credit my fellow Americans with memories much longer than that of "Dory" in Finding Nemo. So, color me pleasantly surprised at this news!

[Excerpt]
 
CNN Poll: Americans Still Blame Bush For Struggling Economy

Five years into Obama's presidency 44 percent of Americans still blame former President George W. Bush and the Republican Party for the country's economic woes, while 34 percent blame President Obama and Democrats, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday.

While more Americans fault Bush for the state of the economy, blame on the former president and Republicans has dipped since 2012, when 57 percent held Bush responsible compared to 35 percent who viewed Obama more culpable. . .

 

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Doubling McDonalds' Paychecks Wouldn't Raise Menu Prices Much

Not McDonald's food, but one of several facts HuffPo
says the fast food industry doesn't want you to know.

Remember awhile back when the Papa John's founder (John McDoucherson, I think) balked at "ObamaCare," saying it would "force" him to raise the price of his pizzas by 14 cents each? And most rational people thought, "Wow! For 14 cents, the pizza workers can have health care? Great!" Well, except conservatives who for some reason don't want that. Anyway, the point is, nobody is going to cancel their pizza order over 14 cents, and look at all the good that would do.

Presently, McDonalds (and Walmart and others) are all in a twist over raising the minimum wage. Even though doing so wouldn't necessarily hurt business. In fact, it would create a larger base of consumers who can--you know--afford to buy things. What's more, given the big corporations' multi-billion dollar profits, they actually could afford to raise all of their workers' salaries, and still make a profit, just less profit. Or, they could raise their prices. But really, not all that much. Check out the story excerpted below.

And in a sidebar, I'd love a clarification on something. We hear, virtually every quarter, that Exxon-Mobil, BP and Shell have had record-breaking profits. In fact the biggest profits in the history of man. McDonalds makes billions too. A number of companies do. And then there's Walmart, with its handful of very, very lucky heirs. They rake in tens of billions in profits per year, per person! What is it to Alice Walton if she makes $10 billion this year, rather than $20 billion, but her employees can afford to shop in her own store? I'd seriously like to know, where do all of these multi-billions in profits go anyway? How much can Sheldon Adelson, for example, spend before he crumbles to dust? Why do the mega-rich try so hard to get even more mega-rich, while their employees can barely scrape by?

[Excerpt]

Doubling McDonald's Salaries Would Cause Your Big Mac To Cost Just 68¢ More: Study

McDonald's can afford to pay its workers a living wage without sacrificing any of its low menu prices, according to a new study provided to The Huffington Post by a University of Kansas student. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Obama Pushes Jobs Bill, GOP Says (Of Course) "NO!"

Add caption

Every month or two--sometime around when they're voting for the umpteenth time to stop "ObamaCare"--you'll hear John Boner Boehner shout, "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?" Forget that the House of Representatives haven't put forth any jobs bills, and that the President can't. And mostly forget that the President has, on more than one occasion, spoken out forcefully for the need for a jobs bill, works projects and the like. He's come up with a number of ideas and solutions, some of them traditionally bipartisan in nature.

But, much like when you're trying to help a friend or a sibling through a tough time with a list of solutions, every one is getting shot down. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (looking and sounding more like a cartoon turtle every day) whined vague reasons why he'd reject it, as did Boehner, who will again ask "where are the jobs" in a few weeks, undoubtedly.

[Excerpt]

Obama challenges GOP to fund jobs programs in exchange for corporate tax overhaul

President Barack Obama will offer Republicans a new “grand bargain” on taxes and job creation—an attempt to find some common ground while a bigger deal to reduce the deficit is stalled. . .

Read more at: Marketwatch

In Case You Missed It: US Reports Record Surplus! Deficit Down!

I filed this under "In Case You Missed It," because you likely did. Especially if you watch FOX "News."

[Excerpt]

Image from source, Washington Post

US gov’t reports $116.5B surplus, largest in 5 years; deficit on track for smallest in 5 years

The federal government on Thursday reported a rare surplus of $116.5 billion in June, the largest for a single month in five years. The gain kept the nation on track for its lowest annual deficit in five years. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Happy Sequester! What Was the Point?

Image from CBS News

I was going to write something about this, but the headline really says it all. I mean, I can't even. . .



[Excerpt]

Sequester: What was the point?

It's March 1, and President Obama today will have to set in motion the sequester cuts that will slash $85 billion from the budget this fiscal year and $1.1 trillion more over the next 10. Lawmakers this week have been busy arguing over who came up with this lousy policy, but the better question is why. . .

Read more at: CBSNews

On a side note, no matter what I do to this photo, only half appears, and I have no caption. Which I find extremely strange. I have to wonder if there is some new image embedding technology that sabotages "fair use" on blogs? Or maybe I'm paranoid. Or maybe Google's Blogger software just has a bug. AHA! It's the deliberate re-use of CBS's enlarged font what did it! Isn't digital detective work fun?

What You Don't Know About Sequestration, and The Deficit

Chart from OurFuture.org

In this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show, Rachel notes an amazing list of things that happened on Tuesday (all linked here):

 - Alaska has passed a law that could arrest law enforcement officers if they enforce gun laws they don't like (wha?)
- Arkansas Governor vetoes anti-abortion ban
- Indiana Senate passes one of those "transvaginal ultrasound" laws just for those who want an "abortion pill" (but not two of them!)
- Illinois elected a new Congresswoman to replace Jesse Jackson Jr.
- Biden meets with retired military for help on gun control
- Patrick Leahy makes announcement on gun control
- Chuck Hagel got confirmed as Defense Secretary
- Pennsylvania GOP forging ahead with vote-rigging scheme
- SCOTUS is votion on the voting right act

 . . .and a whole, whole lot more. A lot happened, and this entire clip (not to mention the entire show) is worth watching. But, what I want you to watch--and get everybody else you know to watch--is the part that begins at 5:15, when Rachel starts talking the dreadful boring "sequestration," or "the sequester," if you prefer. Except she not only makes it not boring, she will teach you something you didn't know. [Story continues below]

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The amazing thing that you don't know (statistically speaking), is that the budget deficit has been dropping. Every year since President Obama has been in office, the deficit has been going down. Not up, down. Only 6% of Americans surveyed knew that, and far and away a majority think it has gone up. Oh, and the sequestration thing that is some sort of vague nod toward "getting serious" about the deficit. . .has no effect on the deficit.

So, watch it, please? Thanks. Oh, and here's another article if you want to know more:

Deficit Is Falling Dramatically, But Only 6% Know That

Gas Prices Up, No Idea Why

What's behind all of this? Does anyone care? Image from HuffPo.

I just watched an unhelpful news report about gas price increases of late. The price has gone up over 25 cents in the last two weeks, and double that this year. The news report blamed rising oil prices, and refinery shutdowns. No further information was offered, and it was pretty much a [shrug] what can you do? report. Unsatisfied, I did a Google search, and found this article:

[Excerpt]

Gas Prices Jump Nearly 25 Cents In Last 2 Weeks

The average price in the United States for a gallon of regular gasoline rose nearly 25 cents in the past two weeks, up steadily since December as refineries passed along their costs, a widely followed survey released on Sunday showed.

Gasoline prices averaged $3.5918 per gallon on Feb. 8, up 24.75 cents from Jan. 25, said Trilby Lundberg, editor of the Lundberg Survey. . .
Read more at: Huffington Post


I read the whole article, but feel only slightly more educated on the issue. They mention "Brent" crude oil futures, but don't elaborate on what the term means. They mention constraints on a "Seaway" pipeline, but don't elaborate on that either. Mostly, these stories all seem to be a focus on the pain at the pump with some vague explanations, a few obscure terms, a nod in the general direction of a reason, and then they call it a day. I've seen nothing that gets at the reason why the prices have spiked, nor really, why the prices dropped so dramatically at the end of last year.

I'm irked by this discovery, but tired and ready for bed. But you know what? I might look into this further! There's got to be more than a grudging but bored glossing over of gas prices in the news, isn't there?

US Postal Service to Halt Saturday Mail Delivery

Image from source, Washington Post

I'm sure some of my conservative friends (hi, Dan!) will declare that the United States Postal Service's dire financial straits are just another example of the "Obama economy." Of course, the issue is not so simple. Though Amazon.com and eBay are surely a cash cow for the USPS, particularly at Christmas time, the fact remains that we have many options when sending packages or messages. I made an observation over the holidays that every year I discover how bad my penmanship is getting when I do Christmas cards. How long until even that tradition is supplanted by e-messaging?

But that's not even the whole story. It was a 2006 ruling by the Republican Congress that pulled the drain-plug on USPS's cash flow. It is a prevalent opinion in the left-wing blogosphere (for good reason) that the GOP really, really wants to dismantle the Post Office for several reasons, including union busting and privatization. Which is curious, because the Post Office is Constitutionally mandated. So much for that strict constructionist malarkey, eh?

So, to try and save itself, USPS is cutting Saturday mail delivery. They'll still deliver packages and emergency items. And other than the cost to the economy for those postal workers whose pay is cut, I don't have a problem with the plan. Do you? Often times, I forget to check the mailbox on the weekends anyway, and if I'm expecting something, it's almost always a package. Good plan, hope it helps. And if this article is right, it is a ploy to get some attention for what Congress did to it in the first place.

[Excerpt]

The Post office is defying Congress by halting Saturday mail. But why?

The U.S. Postal Service announced today that it would stop delivering mail on Saturdays in an effort to save $2 billion per year and shore up its finances. Politically speaking, this is a bold move. In the past, Congress has moved to prevent USPS from cutting back delivery to five days a week. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

$1 Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin!

Image from source, ThinkProgress

I don't know if this is really ever going to happen. I think it sort of sounds like a deux ex machina sort of answer, something come up with in a dream, or by a bad writer or something. It does have some advantages though. Nobody could ever steal it, because how could you spend it. "Do you have change for a trillion?"

[Excerpt]

White House Doesn’t Rule Out Ending Debt Ceiling Standoff With $1 Trillion Platinum Coin

With Congressional Republicans once again threatening to take the nation’s debt limit hostage for spending cuts, economic circles have been abuzz with the possibility that a standoff could be averted via use of a $1 trillion platinum coin. An obscure law, read literally, gives the Treasury Secretary the ability to mint platinum coins of any denomination. Deposited with the Federal Reserve, such a coin would give the federal government the ability to make payments without needing to issue more debt, defusing the possibility of a default due to the debt ceiling. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

AIG Takes the Cake for Gall

Buttwipes. Image from ThinkProgress

Have you seen those heartwarming AIG ads (oddly enough, as I type this, one is airing during an episode of The New Normal), talking about how they're so grateful that we--the American public--bailed them out, and how they paid us back with interest? "Thank you, America!" they say. Don't get teary eyed, they're just buttering you up. For what, I have no idea. But they intend to take some of that interest they paid us back. It's pretty galling. They were only saved because of the damage their stupidity would have wrought on the economy if we hadn't bailed them out. Now they complain about the terms?

[Excerpt]

Oddly enough, as I type this, one is airing during an episode of The New Normal.  

American International Group, the mega-insurer that nearly collapsed in 2008 before being bailed out, is now considering joining a lawsuit filed by its former chairman against the federal government. The lawsuit, filed in 2011 by former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, contends that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment by taking too large a share in the company and charging it excessive interest rates on the $182 billion in loans it gave the company. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

The Very Skittish DOW and the Vagueness of the Business Press

This is just a quick post to point out the futility of trying to understand the stock market. Yesterday, the DOW Jones Industrial Average was up over 140 points, after being down a bit on Wednesday, and closed on Monday and Tuesday due to Hurricane Sandy. On balance, the scales--as I write this--have barely changed since last Friday. As mercurial as the stock market is, that could change of course, but here is the quote that leads CNBC's reporting of the market at the moment:

"Stocks added to losses across the board Friday, as weakness in energy and materials trumped a better-than-expected monthly government jobs report and amid nervousness ahead of next week's presidential election."

Let's parse: "Stocks added to losses. . ." What? Stocks were up yesterday, so adding to what losses? ". . .as weakness in energy and materials trumped a better-than-expected monthly government jobs report. . ." This is really a bit of tea leaf reading here, isn't it? One was goodish and one was baddish, so the baddish one is why the market is down? ". . .and amid nervousness ahead of next week's presidential election." Hunh? Nervous about President Obama winning? Or losing? After all, the DOW has doubled since Obama's election, Mitt Romney's lauded business experience, notwithstanding. How in the world do they know that traders are nervous about the election?

Anyway, I just kind of find this sort of soothsaying kind of hilarious. This is a fairly mild example of the vagueness usually present in these blurbs. But, if stocks were to pare losses or even unexpectedly surge by the end of the day, they'll just revise all of the above to reflect what happened. No one will hold against them what they sussed out incorrectly, nobody will remember. Usually--on any given day when the market has fluctuated back and forth across the line--you can read these revised blurbs while the opposite reality is happening before your eyes. And tomorrow, they're still writing these "best guess" stories.

Writing for the business press must be the second most secure job after writing on the weather. You never have to guess correctly to keep your job!

Source: CNBC

4 Years Ago Today: Dow Drops 777; Largest Drop Ever

Four years ago, this was the point in John McCain's campaign that the writing was on the wall. Given his comments on the economy, the massive nosedive of the stock market just didn't fit with his narrative, and he kept making it worse. But on the day this happened, I wasn't really putting it in that context. I was just blown away by the spectacle. So much so that I used a fairly bad graphic--but then, it was from the source, so I guess they did too? It should have been a jagged stab downward. . .

ORIGINAL POST: September 29, 2008

It's admittedly hard to write this blog, when the biggest stories of the day are in an area I simply cannot speak authoritatively about. I've written a few times already, that I just don't get Wall Street, and all that it entails. And I'd be a bad broker if I did understand it, because the roller coaster ride of the Dow Jones Industrial Average gives me heartburn anyway.

Image from source, AOL News

Today's stock market ride was kind of like watching someone spike your bid on eBay. After seemingly being headed back up after a dive, at about one minute until closing bell, the bottom dropped out. I have a stock ticker on my desktop, and when refreshing it every 20 or 30 seconds, it went down each time. And after 1:00 pm Pacific time, it still kept dropping, from the six hundreds to the low seven hundreds, all the way down to minus 777. That's a lot, right? And how does it keep dropping after the market has supposedly closed? Maybe I don't want to know how all of this works.

Oh, and the headline below is rounding to the nearest fraction, but 777 is the number being used most.

[Excerpt]

Bailout Vote Sacks Dow by Record 778
The failure of the bailout package in Congress triggered a historic selloff on Wall Street - including a terrifying decline of nearly 500 points in mere minutes as the vote took place, the closest thing to panic the stock market has seen in years. . .

Read more at: AOL News

Dow Soars, Day After Obamacare Ruling!

Image from Bloomberg.com

Hmmm. . .is that headline a little out of context? Is anything else going on today that would make the Dow go up? Yes, there's an EU decision. But you know what? It doesn't really matter. All economic diviners and prognosticators are guessing nearly all  the time.

On Thursday, after the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, several economic indicators plunged precipitously. Right-wing World--rocked to its core by the decision to uphold the ACA--seized upon that fact, and put up charts and graphs showing the plunge. They were upset, dammit, but they could say, "See! I told you so!" Yeah, not so much. Forget that the Dow can go up or down in 200-point swings on any given day for any--or no--reason. Forget that on Thursday, it only ended up 20-some-odd points down. Forget that when it goes down during good news, business reporters will say it "dropped, despite" the good news. Forget that when something good happens and it goes up, they use imprecise language, like "stocks are up, amid news that. . ." It's all guess work, and they don't have to be right, like, ever.

So, however the twitchy Wall Street investors got after SCOTUS shook the world yesterday, they apparently got over it fast. Today--as I type this--we're up over 200 points, far exceeding yesterday's drop-off. And by the end of business, it could be over 200, under 100, or up 300. I don't know. You don't know. The CNBC and FOX "Business" channel don't know. But the last two will act like they do. Note the imprecise language below. They don't attribute the sharp stock rise to anything. It's "on the final trading day," "as a surprise agreement" happened, and it "overshadowed" the consumer sentiment report. All speculation.

[Excerpt]

Stocks Hold Sharp Gains on EU Deal; RIM Skids

Stocks held sharp gains across the board on the final trading day of the second quarter as a surprise agreement by EU leaders to help the region's struggling banks overshadowed a disappointing consumer sentiment report. . . .

Read more at: CNBC

Vice President Biden: Romney is a Job Creator. . .in China

Vice President Joe Biden must throw the White House into a bit of a panic anytime he's scheduled to speak publicly. It's not so much that he's really wrong, more that he's liable to phrase the truth badly, or just too bluntly. His gaffes--and there are lots of them--seem to me to be his mouth getting ahead of his brain. A smart guy with less of a filter than a VP probably should have.

But when he's right? He's freakin' right.

[Excerpt]

Biden says Romney good at creating jobs — in China

Vice President Joe Biden kept the pressure on Mitt Romney’s White House bid Tuesday, lampooning the Republican as an expert at job creation — in rival China and growing economic power India. . .

Read more at: The Raw Story

FOX "News" Counts Bush Years as Obama's Fault

I'm having a tough time getting into the blogging swing these last several days. Possibly due to a bit of insomnia, or whatever they call it when you wake up at 5:00 am, and can't get back to sleep for two hours. Anyway, I am here, so let's get on with it!

The latest FOX "News" thing is this study that says Americans have lost wealth since 2007. Well, duh. But FOX has been characterizing it as "the last three years," which is some pretty peculiar math. And even if you get the math right, you can't blame 2007, 2008, or part of 2009 on President Obama. . .unless you're nuts.

[Excerpt]

Surprise! Fox Hosts Blame Obama For Americans' Declining Net Worth

The Federal Reserve released a study this week showing that Americans' net worth fell dramatically between 2007-10. However, while reporting on the study, Fox News hosts falsely claimed the decline occurred during the "last three years," even though it's clear the decline began two years before President Obama took office. . . 

Read more at: Media Matters

Warren Buffet: Corporate Taxes Not Strangling American Competitiveness

So, there you are. Found at: AmericaBlog.com

Jobless Rate at 3-Year Low

Less of this would be a good thing! Image from Reuters

A lot of the "facts" you hear from right-wing world are at best, not facts, or at worst, lies. For instance, the tea party sprang up--immediately after Barack Obama's inauguration day, don't forget--allegedly becaused they were Taxed Enough Already. They claimed it had nothing to do with the fact that Obama was black, it was about objections to his policies. Even though he didn't have any yet. Even though his campaign promises were to not raise taxes on anyone making $250K or less. And as far as I know, he didn't. I'm sorry, taxes on cigarettes and tanning beds are just too stupid and to ridiculous to bitch about. Oh wait, I forgot we were talking about the tea party here.

Anyway, that's just one, "Obama's raising taxes!" Put that in there with "The stimulous didn't create one job." "Government can't create jobs." "Obama is from Kenya, and has a fake birth certificate, and anyway, his parents weren't both citizens. . yeah!" "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme!"
Well, I guess to all of those you can add, "Obama's ruining economy, causing unemployment to soar!" Nope.

[Excerpt]


Unemployment near three-year low

U.S. employment growth accelerated last month and the jobless rate dropped to a near three-year low of 8.5 percent, the strongest evidence yet the economic recovery is gaining steam. . .

Read more at: Reuters

What Happens in Vegas: Fraud & Abuse by Banks on Home Loans

A lot of conservatives--whether politicians, pundits or just internet warriors--like to blame poor people for a lot of things. Herman Cain said, if you aren't rich or don't have a job, "blame yo'self!" Yakkers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity lay the entire economic collapse on poor people. Or government "forcing" banks to give home loans to poor people. That is not true, but that really doesn't matter in their realm. But even here on my blog, I've gotten in arguments in the comments section, over poor people. And in real life, a friend said, "Hey, if you signed the mortgage papers, you pay the bill or you get forclosed. It's only fair."

Fair. Did the banks play fair? Watch this incredible report below from Las Vegas reporter George Knapp. Some people who were in foreclosure, but renegotiated are in trouble. As are some people who simply bought a foreclosed home. Because the paperwork trail is so complicated, and because there was so much fraud by the banksters, these people in actuality do not own their own homes. Knapp himself bought a home three years ago, and technically does not own it!

[Excerpt]

Desert Underwater: Who Owns Your Home?


The foreclosure crisis has several causes, but government investigators now believe that high risk gambling by major banks is mostly to blame for the economic meltdown. Millions of Americans who played by the rules and paid their bills have lost their homes because banks and their service providers cranked out mountains of bogus mortgage documents. . .

Read more at: 8NewsNow

Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.

The Incredible Wealth of the Koch Brothers (And Their Shrinking Work Force)

Right now, the right-wing is charging President Obama with  "class warfare," for saying that the rich should be paying their fair share. The irony is, in the class war, only the rich are winning. Many on the right see any attack on the Koch brothers--the ridiculously wealthy oil barons--as a retort for the demonization of billionaire George Soros by the right. The difference of course, is that Soros uses his money to fight for things that are actually against his financial interests. And the Kochs usually do anything they can to make themselves even richer.

But so what, right? Should we be bagging on people for being successful? No, probably not. Not for that alone. But the Kochs are the lucky recipients of the genetic lottery. They got their money the old fashioned way: they inherited it. But I won't accuse them of not growing the money they got from pops. They've done that. But just check out the video below. Check out the graph that shows the ballooning billions in the Koch's wallets, and the amount of layoffs they've put into effect in their companies. And these guys are buying elections now to make their profit margin even larger. I am insanely curious as to why these two guys need even one more dollar with $50 billion between them.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy