post

Churchill doctrine still holds true

churchill_doctrine_2008_2012

Hello all – I’m back.  A sad turn of events to be sure.  I’ll have more about my journey with Gov. Romney later.  For now, I’ll be posting some of my analysis here on the site.

First, age.  Maggie Thatcher once noted that the facts of life are conservative.  Her distant predecessor, Winston Churchill put it this way: “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and anyman who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”

I’ve played with that model a little bit below noting that 40 seems to be the breaking point here in America.  To wit: if you’re under 40 you’re likely to be a liberal – over 40 – a conservative.

post

DIY Deficit Charting: Impress Your Friends; Demolish Liberal Arguments

01

Mark Twain once quipped: “Get your facts straight, then you can distort them as you please.”

Have you ever found yourself debating a liberal who claims that Barack Obama isn’t the biggest spender this side of oblivion? Did you find yourself scrambling to refute the claim, frantically searching the Internet for facts to refute them?  Well, fear no more… below I take you on a step by step process to demolish their claims with data from the White House’s own website.  All you need is a browser and a copy of Microsoft Excel.  In short: I’m going to show you how to create your own chart showing just how much spending and deficits President Obama has presided over.  There will be little doubt left where things end up.

Step 1: Go to your favorite search engine and type in “OMB historical tables.”  (I’d take you through the WhiteHouse.gov website but I’m afraid you’d get lost)  OMB stands for the Office of Management and Budget, a supposedly independent arbiter of spending, revenues, and deficits from the Executive Branch.  If the search engine gods have smiled on you, your first link should be to this URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Step 2: You are now looking at the official data collected from the OMB giving detailed outlays, surpluses, deficits and more going all the way back to 1789! Assuming you have Excel, click on the link for “Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2017”: (on some phones you can even do this with built in applications).

Step 3: Open up the Excel file (hist01z1.xls).  It should look something like this:

Let me orient you a bit to this.  We’re going to be looking at columns A through D.  Since President Obama is so fond of laying blame at his predecessor’s feet we’re going to compare his performance to that of President Bush.

Step 4: Let’s separate the data a little bit so we can concentrate on the last ten years or so. Here’s how we do it.  Highlight all the rows from 2001 through 2012 Estimate and columns A through D with your mouse.  It looks something like this:

Step 4: Copy the section by pressing Ctrl-C (or Apple-C) on your keyboard or go to Edit and Copy.  Next create a new spreadsheet by going to File and New.  Now click on the cell A2 (so we can give a little room at the top.)  Press Ctrl-V (or Apple-V) on your keyboard or go to Edit and Paste.  You should have some room at the top for the column headers in row 1.  Type in Year (press tab); Receipts (press tab); Outlays (press tab); Deficits.  Expand the columns a little bit if you can’t see all the numbers correctly.  It should look something like this:

Step 5: This is where the fun begins.  Let’s do this in one fell swoop so you can get on with your life and leave your liberal friends in the dust.  Highlight everything on the page.  Now hit Insert >  Chart > Line Chart.

The result should look something like this:

Notice the drop in receipts from 2008 with the increased spending into 2009 (TARP and Stimulus).  Now check the gap between spending (outlays) and taxes (receipts) past 2009.  The gap is a chasm!  Bottom line: from 2010 President Obama has presided over massive spending increases and even larger deficit spending.

Here’s a quick comparison.  Over 8 years President Bush ran up $2 Trillion in deficits.  Let’s leave 2009 in no-man’s land and give Obama credit for 3 years.  Results? Nearly $4 Trillion in deficits.

Case closed.

 

post

Obama the big spender

Do I have to review this? Do I really have to?

Obama is the biggest Presidential spender in modern times.

With data taken from the White House’s own OMB numbers:

Receipts Outlays Deficits Spending %
Carter $1,735,534 $1,962,933 $(227,400) 113%
Reagan I $2,484,038 $3,084,153 $(600,114) 124%
Reagan II $3,266,718 $4,005,159 $(738,443) 123%
Bush $4,169,259 $5,102,493 $(933,234) 122%
Clinton I $5,217,744 $5,947,365 $(729,620) 114%
Clinton II $7,153,603 $5,947,365 $409,237 83%
W I $7,506,646 $8,326,480 $(819,834) 111%
W II $9,652,456 $10,838,237 $(1,185,781) 112%
Obama $9,068,862 $14,521,395 $(5,452,533) 160%

We’ll start with this detail and move on to the real ugly stuff later.

link

Chevy Volt…the Multi-Car Pileup at The Intersection of Crony Capitalism, Green Energy, and Bailouts | The Gateway Pundit

Chevy Volt…the Multi-Car Pileup at The Intersection of Crony Capitalism, Green Energy, and Bailouts | The Gateway Pundit.

link

Unemployed Man Who Shared a Beer With Obama Is Still Out of Work | The Gateway Pundit

Unemployed Man Who Shared a Beer With Obama Is Still Out of Work | The Gateway Pundit.

link

Rasmussen Reports: Obama 46% Cain 36%

Link coming soon but it appears the scandals are taking a toll.  Cain wins the male vote against Obama 44% to 40% but the female gender is dissing Cain altogether with Obama garnering 58% and Cain only 28%.  The 18-29 demo is going to Obama in this head to head with 68% of the vote.  Also 93% of the black vote is still in Obama’s camp.

post

Did Reagan have bigger deficits than Obama?

There’s a graphic making its way across the Internet purporting to show that Reagan’s deficits were bigger than Obamas.

Actually, I can’t tell what the graphic is trying to portray because the resolution is so lousy but it seems to imply that Reagan grew the deficit more than Obama.

Let’s use the White House OMB numbers to tell the truth here.

If you have Microsoft Excel you can follow along!

  1. 1) Search for OMB on Google.
  2. 2) Click on Historical Tables under the sub menus there
  3. 3) Go down to Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2005) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2016
  4. 4) Open the XLS file in Excel
  5. 5) Go to the bottom of the table and give yourself some space
  6. 6) Type in the following row labels: Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama. Put these labels as columns: Deficits, Average/yr, It should look like this:
    Deficit Average / yr
    Reagan
    Bush 41
    Clinton
    Bush 43
    Obama
  7. 7) Next type this code at the intersection of Reagan and Deficit: =SUM(G47:G54)
    (this should account for the years 1981-1988 – the years Reagan was in office. Notice we’re using column “G” which converts all the numbers to 2005 dollars)
  8. 8 ) For Bush 41: =SUM(G55:G58)
  9. 9) For Clinton: =SUM(G59:G66)
  10. 10) For Bush 43: =SUM(G67:G74)
  11. 11) For Obama: =SUM(G75:G77)
    (we’ll use 2009-2011 for our purposes here)
  12. 12) You table should look like this:
    Deficit Average / yr
    Reagan $(2,338.90)
    Bush41 $(1,319.60)
    Clinton $(459.40)
    Bush43 $(1,985.10)
    Obama $(3,861.10)
  13. 13) You should be able to figure out the Average per year column. For example: for Reagan you would divide by 8.  Final results:
    Deficit Average / yr
    Reagan $(2,338.90) $(292.36)
    Bush41 $(1,319.60) $(329.90)
    Clinton $(459.40) $(57.43)
    Bush43 $(1,985.10) $(248.14)
    Obama $(3,861.10) $(1,287.03)

Enough said.  Obama is by far the biggest debt giver here.

Here’s a chart showing Receipts, Outlays and Deficits from a previous article I wrote.

post

Do the rich pay their fair share?

As Obama ramps up to tax the rich we ask: what constitutes a fair tax for the richest among us?

From 2009 data taken directly from the IRS we get the following breakdown of high income taxpayers vs. the rest of us:

All Taxpayers Make over $1 Million Percent
No. returns 81,890,189 235,649 0.29%
Gross Income $6,777,684,912,000 $726,910,880,000 10.73%
Taxes paid $865,948,695,000 $177,700,565,000 20.52%

In other words. Taxpayers who make over $1 Million a year constitute just .29% (point 29 percent) of all tax returns, account for 10.73% of all taxable gross income and pay over 20% (twenty percent) of all taxes.

Think about it, a group that makes up 3 tenths of 1% of our population pays 20% of the US receipts.  Ummm… that’s seems fair to me.

post

Does taxing the rich work? Nope. Here’s the proof.

The Left loves to decry that that “the rich get richer and poor get poorer”.  Their solution is always to tax the rich. Does taxing the rich lead to better income distribution? No, in fact, quite the opposite.

Let’s put this to the test using the latest data from the Census Bureau just released to the public.

One set of data I’m particularly fond of are the aggregate income tables found here.

These data show the % of the income held by each quintile income bracket.  In other words, if you sliced up taxpaying American households into 5 parts – what is the percentage of the total aggregate wealth in each bracket?

Using out trusty Many Eyes tool provided free by IBM we can give you an interactive graph of the same.

Let’s look at the data from 1967 – 2010:

Notice that distribution of income for the wealthiest jumps remarkably in 1993 after Clinton enacted what became known (even in Democrat circles) as the “largest tax increase in history.” The top 5th income bracket (those making over $100K a year) saw a huge bump in their percent take of all the money. In fact, if you narrow it to the top 5% of earners (those making $180,000 a year) their percentage jumped 13%!

Zooming in you can see this in action. Click on the last item on the left “Lowest fifth”.

The lowest fifth income earners (those making under $20,000 a year) saw their percentage command on the economy drop.

Notice that Obama has presided over the largest percentage drop in aggregate income for the poor – since they began keeping records.

So, we know what will happen if we raise taxes again. Fewer receipts and poorer poor among us.

post

Solyndra Aftermath: Obama Padding Stimulus Job Numbers

Solyndra claimed that it created over 5000 jobs yet, reportedly, only 14 jobs were actually created at Solyndra – what gives?!

Obama and his apologists claim that the stimulus program has created something like 3 million jobs.  That’s a farce and the Solyndra disaster shines much needed sunlight on the issue.

In short: Obama and the administration are padding the stimulus jobs numbers, doing so openly, and hoping semantics around the word “job” will fool us all.

On the official website of the White House which tracks stimulus funding (Recovery.gov) you can scroll down the page and see this little widget:

Note the caveated nomenclature: “number of hours worked in a quarter.”  In my books that’s not a job… that’s a project – a gig.

Now let’s dive into Solyndra.

According to their quarterly reports (which you can see on Recover.gov here) over the course of 8+ quarters Solyndra reported the following jobs created and stimulus funds paid into the company:

Timeline Jobs Rolling Total Paid
thru 2009 Q3 118 $21,380,155
2009 Q4 541 $119,475,615
2010 Q1 1066 $228,305,998
2010 Q2 1299 $361,578,605
2010 Q3 791 $401,935,106
2010 Q4 585 $474,770,835
2011 Q1 585 $517,029,855
2011 Q2 158 $519,558,661

That’s a total of 5143 jobs created over two years.  What happened to those jobs?

Here’s the reality.  The jobs went to government contractors who provided temporary employment to people they had on staff already or on other projects.

More details on this soon but know this… the jobs on Recovery.gov are essentially bogus.

moncler jacken kaufen pandora charms online louis vuitton sale canada goose chilliwack mbt cheap beats koptelefoon