The Jim of the United States

Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Unemployment, By Month, Over The Past 3 Years

Posted by TheJOTUS on August 23, 2010

Have you ever stopped to think just how bad our economy has become in the last 3 years?  Well take a look at this:

Here is a snapshot of what the unemployment picture looked like just prior to President 3 wood taking office:

Now check out the last map in this video:

So when Sheriff Joe calls the stimulus an “absolute success”, well, he doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.  The stimulus failed.  Miserably.  It did nothing to help American jobs and everything to allow the democrats in Congress to help itself to even more fantasy money.  All the while increasing the deficit and raising taxes.


Posted in Economy, Taxes | Leave a Comment »

An Economic Tidbit On Corporate Taxes

Posted by TheJOTUS on August 22, 2010

Another piece from Uncle Curtis.  I am thinking you guys are going to like him:

America has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world.  I wonder who has the first?  Japan has the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.5%.   America has the second highest corporate tax rate at 39.3%.

First off, corporations do not pay taxes, consumers do. If you raise the property tax of a local utility that provides you energy, who do you think ultimately pays the taxes, you, or that energy company?

If you answer that the cost of those taxes are passed on to you, the consumer, in the form of a higher utility bill, you can move to the head of Dr. Williams’ class.

It matters not what the taxes are or in what form, when you tax a corporation, your cost for those goods and services are going to increase.

With the USA having a corporate tax rate of 39.3%, it is no wonder that our goods and services do not sell well. It also explains why the cost of imported goods (like at Wal-Mart) are less expensive than American made products.

Here is another way of looking at this.

If you don’t think that the customer pays the taxes, then you must think that the owner of the corporations (the shareholders) are paying the taxes, but the company is simply paying those taxes on their behalf.

So let’s go with this thought. Well, the corporation IS owned by shareholders. After the corporation has paid taxes on what they earned, they pay dividends on those earnings to the shareholder. The Shareholder, then pays taxes on the dividends, which they, as shareholders of the corporation have already paid taxes on those earnings. In this analogy, someone that owns a company (shareholder) is still going to have to raise the cost of goods and services to make the same amount of money that companies from other countries make, because they have been “double-taxed” that companies (owners) from other countries are not.

Bottom line, corporate taxes are what are called, “Hidden taxes”. But these “Hidden Taxes” are the most punitive taxes because they secretly cause prices to rise, reducing American production, while promoting the import of foreign goods and services.

THAT is why America is losing jobs to foreign countries.

—Uncle Curtis

Posted in Economy, Taxes | Leave a Comment »

A Few Points On Wind Power

Posted by TheJOTUS on August 22, 2010

I’ve said before that I have always had conservative beliefs–even as a kid.  But when looking back on it, I think it was my Uncle Curtis that really solidified where I was on the political spectrum.  I don’t think he has any idea how influential he was on me.

With that said, I will be posting some various thoughts from Uncle Curtis.  At least until he figures out how to post on here himself.  I joke, I joke.  At any rate, here is a piece on the benefits of wind power, or lack thereof:

Regarding wind power generation (wind turbines), time to back up the facts with sources.  Below are the facts.  The following is the truth about wind power.

First, it takes a minimum wind speed to generate electricity from a wind turbine. The environmentalists like to use the “8 MPH” wind speed as their number, but that is TOTALLY misleading, because the amount of electricity generated at an 8 MPH wind is insignificant. It really takes 25 MPH wind to generate real power.

“Cut-in Speed – Cut-in speed is the minimum wind speed at which the wind turbine will generate usable power. This wind speed is typically between 7 and 10 mph for most turbines. A 10 kilowatt wind turbine may not generate 10 kilowatts until wind speeds reach 25 mph. Rated speed for most machines is in the range of 25 to 35 mph.”

So where is this this “reliable wind”?

This graphic shows where the wind is reliable enough to generate electricity. The source I used is from a government web site that advocates wind power!  Note that for about 75% of the continental United States, the reliable wind source for power generation just does not exist!

So now you start to see the problem of where the reliable wind exists, as well as how to get the power to the nation. As you can clearly see from that chart, that is a very serious problem. When you look at the chart, you can also see why there were so many wind farms in upper Iowa (because that was a hot spot for reliable wind). But that is one of the very few spots at least “GOOD” on that map (and Iowa isn’t even “Excellent”).

So, let’s assume for a moment we do have that wind to generate that power. How much does it cost to build the power turbines versus the cost of the coal plants to operate? From their own “pro-wind” web site, the costs per KWH are:

Gas Turbine: 13.9¢
Coal: 4.5¢
Nuclear: 4.6¢
Wind: 7.5¢

Yes, wind is MORE expensive than coal! That is because it takes hundreds of wind turbines (with VERY high costs) to equal the power generated from one coal generated power plant!

But here is the little hidden secret that I have kept talking about. Even with having reliable wind power and those wind turbines, guess what? You still need a power plant up and running 24/7. So you still have that additional cost! (which they do not include in their “per kwh” cost of wind power!

“Since the grid or control area must be kept in balance at all times (supply and demand, frequency, voltage), some generating unit(s) must be immediately available at all times to provide backup service (or balance) for the electricity (if any) coming from the wind turbines. This means that the unit(s) providing the backup service may be operating in an automatic generation control mode, running at less than peak capacity, and/or running in spinning reserve mode.”

But when these whacko environmentalists talk about the cost of wind power, they always exclude that cost! They only want to talk about the cost of the wind turbines alone!

Ok, so now is the funny part. You will hear the pro-wind advocates keep using the phrase, “FREE, IT’S FREE! IT’S FREE” (sounding like Michael Moore in the movie “Sicko” talking about nationalized health care).

“How Expensive is Wind-Generated Electricity?

Once a wind-turbine is built and paid for, it generates electricity almost for free. Once your house is built and paid for, it provides housing almost for free. What really matters is the cost to society. With current subsidy methods, it costs around 3¢/kWh of subsidy to get wind turbines built.”

You see, that is the funny part. Oh, once we build it, it is free! Or, (as in the case of “free subsidies”) it is cheaper because it is subsidized….by our taxes!

—Uncle Curtis

Posted in Economy, Energy, Taxes | Leave a Comment »

Associated Press: You Lie!!

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 28, 2010

The AP does a nice job notating that Obama’s kind of a liar.  They composed a list of 10 fails in last night’s SOTU.  Only 10 you might ask?  They must have gotten tired of his rambling and just plained tuned out.  Like my wife did about 3 minutes into the speech:

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have “outsized influence” over the government. He said his administration has “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.” He also said it’s time to “require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress” and “to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn’t absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that’s unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they’re limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

They note seven of these waivers were for White House posisitions, however Obama has hired over a dozen.  He called for restrictions on lobbyist contributions, but as the AP notes, those already exist.  But hey, details scmeetails right?

OBAMA: “I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

Note to Obama:  We already have a bipartisan committee dickbag.  It’s called the 535 members of Congress.  The voters elected them to solve budget problems and they meet every two years to address that very issue.  In fact, Mr. Constitutional Professor, Congress’ first task under the Constitution, Article I Section 8, is to approve a budget for the federal government.  We elect Representatives and Senators to do this with full accountability to their constituents.  Take a high school civics class Barry.

Moving forward with that, Obama keeps repeating over and over how he inherited huge budgetary problems from Bush.  But again, the worst Con Law professor evaaaah might want to brush up on his skilz.  The President doesn’t pass budgets, Congress does.  And the last three budgets came from the democrats.

In the six years Republicans held congress under George Bush, they increased federal spending $800 billion.  Yet in just three years, democrats have increased spending $900 billion.  Hello???  And during those last three years before becoming President, Obama served in the Senate.  And guess who voted for every single democratic budget?

Moreover, from the day Obama took office to the end of the current fiscal year, the debt held by the public will grow to $3.3 trillion. So in 20 months, Obama will add as much debt than what Bush did in 8 years.

What does this mean?  You. Lie.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Economy, Politically Speaking | 1 Comment »

Recession Review: In Tonight’s Performance, The Role Of Roman Polanski Will Be Played By Barack H. Obama, And The Role Of 13-Year-Old Girl Will Be Played By the U.S. Economy

Posted by TheJOTUS on October 1, 2009

Hey, I thought it was clever and so I ran with it.

Yesterday it was announced that the economy hasn’t contracted as much as expected.  Yet, for the year, we are still in a record decline

Is .07% contraction better than the 1% previously estimated?  Yes, I suppose.  Although, this is like comparing your slightly swollen testicle with your much larger swollen testicle.  It’s still bad.

But is it really winding down?  Elsewhere, analysts claim:

“The downturn appears to have concluded this summer, and the economy is on track to grow for the first time in more than year in the third quarter. The initial phase of growth is being driven by rapid recoveries in housing and manufacturing, diminishing drags from equipment spending and nonresidential construction, and government support.”

I don’t get how we can lose a quarter of a million jobs this last go around,  and still claim the downturn has concluded.  Doesn’t it stand to reason that a recovery includes the notion of an actual recovery?  The economy is still contracting.  Admittedly, the data suggests it’s contracting at a slower pace, but still contracting.

Meanwhile, initial jobless claims rose to 551,000.  12,000 more than “analysts” predicted.  So, we have that going for us.

Posted in Economy, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »