August 9, 2016

They wore masks of red, white, and blue

The thesis statement of this updated article goes as follows:

If merely one avenue of economic flow
is cut-off in a society, the economic sys-
tem within it is intrinsically evil.   Today,
the flow of American exports into foreign
lands has been deterred by dictatorships
that engage in stereotypical protectionism
and sweatshop labor.  As a result, foreign
labor cannot afford to buy American.

Now, Economics is the science of the flow of
currency.  The first law of it is that there needs
to be equal & unabridged reciprocity between
trading nations.  There needs to be two open
doors and two unobstructed lanes of commerce,
or else there will come a time of accountability.
American money continues to be injected into these sweatshop dictatorships, there-
by causing a continual rise in the U.S. trade balance deficit.   The workers of the
dictatorships don't have the money to buy American goods.  This causes a contin-
ual sabotaging of the GDP and U.S. per capita income, being that money goes to
Communist China and similar economic venues, not to return to America in any
foreseeable future. 
__________________________________________________________

Introduction

The national debt reached $16 trillion and became 100% of the Gross Domestic
Product.  It' went to 17.8 trillion, in October 2014 and $18.1 trillion in April of
2015.  Yet, it could be worse, being that Greece, Italy, and Japan were in worse
conditions.  In fact, shortly after WWII, America was faced with a debt over its
GDP.   Yet, America paid off the entire war debt in due time.   None the less,
the Bush administration was a Category 5 Sabotage on America.   Ironic it is
how the president who claimed to be protecting America from saboteurs was
sabotaging America all along.

http://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2014/01/bush-economics-was-reaganomics.html

In addition, there is the statistical fact that total consumer debt as of March 2010 was
$2.45 trillion.   Therefore, someone somewhere should be realizing that it will soon be
time for Americans to go to Plan B, simply by default.    This consists in a total over-
haul of present economic policy and law.   Plan B will not not not involve following
anyone who claims that deregulation will result in the public debt being erased in five
years.   Yet, Americans seem  incapable of avoiding political con games, as in $729
billion going to the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security for 2010, mean-
ing that America spends as much on its military as does the next twenty-two highest
spending nations combined. 

The Initial Cause of Economic Woes 

Taking the manufacturing base out of America was the beginning of  woes.   After all,
manufacturing employees pay more income taxes than do those who can only find jobs
as coffee barristers and convenient store cashiers.  So too is this is case with corpora-
tions whose manufacturing bases are in America.  In addition, those employed in man-
ufacturing aren't in dire need of unemployment compensation.

The propaganda repeatedly hurled at us was that the United States of America has be-
come "a service economy."    Okay then, those in power have succeeded in turning
Americans into servants.   Next will come a nation of volunteers unable to pay bills.
America is too geographically large for it to be a  "service economy," as opposed to
it being a manufacturing nation.  Realize the con game that has been played for years:

- $9.2 trillion 20-yr trade balance deficit, due to sweatshop imports.
- $4.1 trillion in U.S. treasury bills, T-bonds, and notes owned by foreign nations.
              http://www.treasury.gov/ticdata/Publish/mfh.txt
- $1.4 trillion in two protracted wars.
- $17.8  trillion national debt still rising.
- Offshore corporate tax shelters.
- Certain types of unchecked price gouging.
- The aftermath of those infamous $640 hammers charged to the U.S. military.
- Interest turns debt into a runaway train when principle reaches multiple trillions.

Don't be presumptive.  There will even be an unfavorable consequence if America
were to be cleared of  its national debt through debt forgiveness.  In fact, there will
be a Category Five effect if a sum of money equal to the public debt is printed as the
solution.   Yet, the best case scenario at present is for 21st Century America to be-
come another 20th Century Argentina minus an Evita, unless America immediately
stops the unfair and imbalanced trading with those protectionist dictatorships that
are immersed in sweatshop labor.

The lie about China owning our debt, while at the same time, they have
a tight hold on us, in manipulating currency value via our indebtedness

The U.S. had a high public debt in relation to its Gross Domestic Product, shortly af-
ter WWII.  It was 117% of GDP.   The difference between then and now is the man-
ufacturing base and the trade balance deficit.   If we continue importing slave labor
products from protectionist dictatorships, then its all over for America.  Period.  We
need a manufacturing base and trade balance surpluses.

At this point, keep in mind that the WWII war debt was entirely paid.   Thus, it's a lie
for anyone to claim that the American public debt is not payable.   It's equally false to
claim that it can be paid off in five years if we continue to do what caused it to go out
of control in the first place.  That which caused it to go out of control was a poorly
explained combination of  Trickle Down Economics & Deregulation.  Trickle Down
Economics, incidentally, has no basis in fact.  The multiplier effect does, but it involves
large numbers;  not mere trickles of money.

At this point, something else has to be mentioned.  Propaganda through the radio re-
peatedly stated that China owns our debt.   This makes it sound as if our degree of
indebtedness to China is so high that we cannot severe slave labor trade with that
nation.   Well, China only held approximately $891 billion in treasury bonds as re-
cently as New Year's Day.  The latest report marked it at $1.16 trillion.

Even though this is alarming, proving the necessity of putting entirely new people in
government posts, China does not hold $14 trillion worth of  American bonds.  It,
therefore, doesn't own America.  Yet, it weighs America down, in having control
of it.  This past Winter season or os, PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management
Co.) had already dumped all of its U.S. bonds, simply because the interest rate
on them were too low.  

Concerning those nations who owned our bonds at New Years 2011, they included
Japan at $883 billion, the United Kingdom at $541 billion, fifteen oil exporter nations
at $218 billion, and Brazil at $180 billion.  No individual nation owns us.   Yet, we
are no longer free from these nations, meaning that we are no longer the land of the
free.   None the less, it's ironic how the United States became an enslaved debtor
to Communist China during the time when certain political operatives went about
bragging that Reagan and John Paul II saved us from Communism.   Uhm, we are
drowning in debt to Communists.   No one saved us from anything, especially the
$729 billion spent on defense and Homeland Security in 2010.

Our Military Will Not Save Us from Our Debt

Someone wrote that, if a certain nation dumps our I.O.U's (aka treasury bonds),
then the U.S.A. will "wipe them off the face of the Earth."   Stop there.   Keep one
thing in mind if you think that the United States can use its military to bully people
while juxtaposing its astronomical debt:   When the pay checks of military person-
nel stop, the U.S. military stops functioning.   When there is no more payroll, there
will be no more standard operating G.I. Joe.   More than enough veterans are tired
of it all, in having been used, reused, and misused.   As of recently, they can't even
be guaranteed that their family members will have a peaceful funeral.   That's ob-
scene on the part of the present powers that be.

Even if China is ready to dump its bonds, America can play its emergency version of
Argentina and send the printing presses into overtime ........ at our expense of course,
in the form inflation and the dominoes effect thereof.   For the record, this is what's
referred as monetizing the debt.    Ironically, there can be a bit of hedging done by
purchasing foreign bonds. 

According to reports as far back as 2009, China didn't intend to dump, but to di-
versify.   None the less, if it or Japan dumps bonds, the interest rate on the bonds
elevate, accelerating the astronomical national debt.  

In re:  Those Who Must Refrain from Vying for Power

If you are a candidate whose campaign money is largely from oil companies, then
you need to recognize that you will be the puppet on the strings of a federal usur-
pation that will draft all laws in the image and likeness of the petroleum industry.
Plus, if you believe that Social Security is an unconstitutional Ponzi Scheme, then
you are illiterate.  This is because it has long since been publicized that the Social
Security Administration presently holds $2.6 trillion in treasury bonds, meaning
that Social Security will be allegedly be solvent until 2038, unless America goes
out of business.  In fact, in stating that Social Security is unconstitutional, you are
actually claiming that it is anti-constitutional and you are therefore incapable of ex-
plaining a basic court judgment regarding it.

For those who need to know, Social Security is an element of what's known as sub-
stantive law and not a part of the constitution per se.  However, once Social Security
was enacted, the administration of it came under constitutional law, at "the Equal Pro-
tection" 14th Amendment.  Thus, the Procedural Law applicable to Social Security's
Substantive Law is completely constitutional.

If you couldn't explain something so simple, you should NOT run for president, lest
you run this nation into the ground.   Furthermore, be honest enough to let people
know that you became governor when George Bush was elected president, there-
by creating a nexus between you and the president who elevated the national debt
by $4.9 trillion dollars ... by this much:  $4,900,000,000,000.  Bush II basically
set this nation up for its inevitable end, unless we return to 1946 and have an eco-
nomic do over.  Under the Obstructionist Congress of the Obama years, the U.S.
national debt went beyond the sound barriers of obscenity.

Keep in mind that the last two Texan presidents put America through three protract-
ed wars.   At present, Texas is number 1 is minimum wage jobs.  In fact, 21st Cen-
tury Texas is 49th in verbal S.A.T. scores and 46th in math S.A.T. scores.  Out of
Texas' 145 institutions of higher education, only Rice University ranked in the top 50.
Between 2002 and 2006, tuition at Texan State universities rose 61.4%.  Someone
doesn't know how to run his State.  See:


http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/wwstand/wws0512ed/

It's not ironic that flag wavers are the ones responsible for destroying America, there-
by making my father's 35 combat missions over Nazi territory for naught.  Rather, it's
typical.   They used the flag as a diversion, in order to grab everything for themselves.
They wore masks of red, white, and blue, in order to get us to let down our guard.

Interesting thing about this government which is called a "democracy."   Its constitu-
tion was drafted in secret, with the curtains literally closed, thirteen years after it de-
clared its own independence.  Of course, closed curtains slightly cool a room, but
why not open the doors?  This doesn't sound much like democratic rule to the rea-
sonably minded person.   So, why lie to yourself?    Washington sent troops to a
whiskey rebellion which actually didn't exist.   That doesn't sound much like a man
who allowed democratic dialogue.   You know, you actually are allowed to think.
If you can read this, it means that God gave you a mind.   So, use it, or else we're
all doomed.   And yes, that last line was intended to be humor.  Or was it?

Till the next time,

Patrick Anthony Pontillo, Pittsburgh, PA.
_____________________________________________________________

August 7, 2016

Reagan: Hollywood Commando with a 1932 bookkeeper's aptitude.

Humanity needs much more than a trickle of the money supply.
Ronald Reagan was nothing more than a Class B actor and a ticker-tape sports an-
nouncer.  He was neither a scholar nor a decorated combat veteran.  In fact, he only
graduated with a C average in 1932, from Eureka College.  He majored in Sociolo-
gy and Economics, beginning in 1928.  This means that he began his college studies
during the Roaring 20's, when it looks as if prosperity has going to continue into the
1930's.  Then came the Great Depression, when no one was wise enough to know
that it was en route to America.  Thus, Reagan studies during the years when no one
had the answer to the cause of America's worst economic crisis.

Accounting courses during that era was little more than bookkeeping classs, whereas
during the Space Age, ratios, the delineation of costs, formulas, marginal utility curves
comprised accounting.  Incidentally, if you majored in Econ, you were required to pass
a couple accounting courses.  In as much, America and California elected to executive
posts a man who had the economic prowess of a bookkeeper ... literally.

                              The General Scorecard on Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan is the president who I] tripled the national debt, II] saw the national
unemployment rate rocket to 10.8% after having signed the first of two major income
tax rate decreases for the wealthiest Americans,  III] was granted 18 national debt ceil-
ing increases by the US Congress,  IV] signed into law various types of tax increases,
including an elimination of a major COBRA tax deduction.   V] froze the minimum
wage throughout his entire presidency.
                                                                    &
VI} Reagan caused the creation of the two-income family and the lonely phenomenon
of the latch key kid, due to the financial burden that Reagan let be imposed upon any-
one not counted among the rich.  VII] Plus, he funneled weapons to Iran & Nicaragua, 
VIII} set the Savings & Loan Crisis into motion by eliminating a major tax deduction
upon which real estate investors depended,  IX] opened the door to the Maoist sweat-
shop dictatorship in 1986, only for it, to end up owning over a trillion dollars worth of
U.S. Treasury bonds by the Year 2011.

X] In addition, Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
of  1982 —TEFRA—the largest tax increase in the history of the United States, when
combined with 1984 legislation, which was designed  to raise $214.1 billion through-
out a 5 year period, reminiscent, in a way, of one of Stalin's Five Year Plans. 

XI] Year prior, Reagan signed into California law (as governor) the largest tax increase
in the history of any American state, up to that  time.  XII] As president, Reagan froze
the minimum wage throughout his entire presidency.
                                                                      &
XIII] Reagan, in the spirit of his generation's racism, vetoed the Comprehensive Anti-
Apartheid ActXIV] In the spirit of Frick, Carnegie, and the union busters of America,
he let the Pittsburgh steel industry go into nonexistence, despite the fact that it was the
Steel Capitol of the World the day Reagan took office.  XV]  Reagan simultaneously in-
creased the size of the federal government, even though he promised to reduce it, in ele-
vating the number of legislative and executive branch federal employees from 2,860,000
in 1981 to 3,113,000 in 1988.  XVI] Under Ronald Reagan, there actually was a decline
in government revenue as a ratio of national income, compared to Jimmy Carter's final
year in office. 
                                                                  &
XVII] One of the most poignant hypocrisies of Reagan was that he declined to defend
the right of Christians to not be required to desecrate their time-honored Sabbath with
performing unnecessary work under penalty of being fired or not hired, despite the fact
that Reagan presented to the Christian world as the pope of the "Moral Majority."
                                                                 &
XVIII] In 1985, for the first time since 1914, the United States became a debtor na-
tion.  In fact, it became the top debtor nation in the world, despite the fact that, when
Reagan enter office in 1981, the United States was the top creditor nation on earth.
XIX] Vetoed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/17/business/us-turns-into-debtor-nation.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-06-24/news/mn-21190_1_foreign-investments

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291&dat=19860319&id=VwtUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kowDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6642,6797126

XIX] Under Reagan, from 1981 to 1983, the number of Americans living below the
poverty line went from 31,822,000 to 35,303,000.   As Reagan left office, there would
be more people living below the poverty line in America than when he entered office.
However, he was hailed as having taken millions out of poverty, when the fact is that
he was the one who originally lodged them there, after his 1981 income tax cut to the
rich ... and the income tax deduct was to the rich only.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104525.html 

XX]  Under Reagan, on October 19, 1987, the Stock Markets in America and else-
where crashed, having lost 22.6% of its value in one day.  It was called Black Mon-
day at the time.  The event was officially identified as the Stock Market Crash, by
the Federal Reserve Board and it is involved both the Dow and the S&P 500 index,
as well as the futures market and options market.

This worldwide historic event proves that the right wing conservative Republicans
lied each time in claiming that there was a recovery under Reagan.  Keep in mind
that there was also a Savings & Loan Crisis which began under Reagan's watch.

Black Monday: 25th anniversary of 1987 stock market crash; ABCNews, 2012

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8852839

Reagan's Leadership, Too, Was Questioned After 1987 Stock Market Drop;
NPR News, 2011

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/08/09/139237597/reagans-leadership-too-was-questioned-after-1987-market-drop

A Brief History of the 1987 Stock Market Crash with a Discussion of the Federal
Reserve Response;  issued by the Federal Reserve Board, 2006

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2007/200713/200713pap.pdf

Concerning what was called the Reagan Recovery, the University of Virginia's Miller
Center reported how it was dispersed.  The rise in personal income did NOT benefit
Americans equally.  The report was that the income of the rich rose 9%, the income
of the middle class rose only 1%, and the income of African Americans decreased
8% ... so said the Miller Ctr of the Univ of VA.  The Reagan Recovery was merely
the phenomenon of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. 

   One study revealed that while annual income for American families grew 
   by 3.5 percent during Reagan's first term, middle-class families saw only 
   a 1-percent gain, compared to affluent Americans (those in the top quin-
   tile of the income bracket) who saw their incomes rise by 9 percent.  

   In contrast, American families with incomes in the bottom quintile saw 
   their average incomes decline by 8 percent; black families and house-
   holds headed by women were particularly hard hit by declining incomes.  
  Finally, child poverty increased to levels exceeding those of the mid-1960s. 
  Miller Center, Univ of Virginia, Charlottesville.

The list of grievances go on and on, including the fact that 138 members of Reagan's
administration were officially investigated, some of whom were indicted, some of
whom were convicted, included those who were pardoned.  In fact, in having placed
James Watts as the head of the Department of the Interior, Reagan assigned a fox to
guard a chicken coup. 

Reagan's Economic Priority

Reagan's economic priority was that of erasing Taxflation.  This is the phenomenon
of inflation eventually resulting in a higher salary, and therefore, a higher income
bracket which erases some of the increased income through tax liability.  It's also
referred to a 'tax creep,' as in creeping up the tax brackets.  Of course, Reagan's
folly was in disregarding tax deductions, tax credits, and tax incentives which
can erase a person's income tax liability in part or whole.

None the less, in order to prevent taxflation, Reagan lobbied Congress to limit the
income tax brackets to two of them ... one at 28% and one at 15%.  The next prior-
ity was that of decreasing inflation which occurred through low interest rates.  The
book-keeping on the inflation rate was changed by changing the computation of the
Consumer Price Index.  This change made the inflation look like it was steadily
dropping at an impressive rate.  The former way of computing the CPI made in-
flation rates look erratic.  The former way counted home rental prices, but not
home mortgaging, being that a mortgage is a fixed contract that doesn't change
every quarter.

None the less, under Reagan, the price of gasoline decreased throughout his entire
presidency, when measuring year-by-year and not month-by-month.   Of course, they
price was previously far to high and OPEC was retaliating against the Ford and Cart-
er administrations, severely.  However, even though the price of gasoline fell during
the Reagan years, the purchasing power of the individual American citizen decreased
during the same Reagan years, thereby causing the same effect as inflation. 

Plus, Reagan agreed to items in congressional bills that are considered as
anathema by today's Republican propagandists

This part of Reagan's scorecard is significant in that it shows today's right wing con-
servative Republican mouthpiece to be a complete, and not even partial liar:

To start, in 1975, Democratic senator Russel Long, of Louisiana, succeeded in hav-
ing the Earned Income Tax Credit enacted into law.  In was a law fading away, in
terms of impact.  Then, Reagan agreed to have it expanded in the 1986 tax reform
bill.  Yes, the EITC condemned by the party of greed and sweatshop profiteering
found new life in the Reagan years.

In addition, Reagan signed into law the highest corporate tax increase in American
history.  Corporate tax loopholes were closed to the tune of $300 billion 1980 dollars,
while corporate tax liabilities were raised by $120 billion 1980 dollar, for a five year
period.  Thus, Reagan saw to the lowered of the tax rates of the individual wealthy.
This means that Reagan lowered his own tax rate.  Reagan showed that he didn't
care about America ... only his re-election campaign funds and his own bank ac-
counts.  In attacking inflation as he did, he showed that he merely wanted to make
sure that the money he had sitting in financial accounts wouldn't dwindle in value. 

Let's do the Apocalypso

If the aforementioned bibliographical references aren't enough for you, the follow-
ing provides firsthand, close-up, expert assessment of Reaganomics, being that it
was written by Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman.  David spoke of the
Reagan Reformation as the Deformation.  Needless to say, he resigned from the Rea-
gan administration.  His main reason was that Reagan was lying to himself, in insist-
ing to adhere to his unfounded Reaganomic beliefs which were deceptively camou-
flaged behind Milton Friedman's Supply Side doctrine.   Therefore, Mr. Stockman's
2010 New York Times op-ed (opposing editorial) is titled Four Deformations of the 
Apocalypse.  The title is a play on the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?ref=opinion

To fill in the empty spaces that an op-ed, in its short length creates, the following is
1988 article is in order, and it's brought to you by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

This is important to note, because Rand Paul, the eye doctor who is NOT a scholar
in economics is heralded as a follower of the Austrian School of Economics, as if
he found a new and improved way to deal with an economy.  It's that the Austrian
school omits from its books measurements presented as essential elements of stan-
dardized economic science.

The point to mentioning this is that Rand is now presented as a Reaganomics guru
in the name of the Austrian school of economics.  Yet, that school sponsored the
full scale condemnation of Ronald Reagan's legacy.  Rand Paul's propagandists
state that Rand studied Austrian economics.  But where?  He was an eye doctor.
So, where were the Austrian Economics course held?

Anyway, the Ludwig von Mises article about Reagan, written at the end of Reagan's
presidency is titled, The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan.

                    http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

August 5, 2016

The small business tax diatribe remains a Republican smoke screen

This topic resurfaced on right wing talk radio in October 2013.  It then was a
topic on MSNBC.  During the government shutdown, it was used to condemn
the Affordable Care Act, but only through fraudulent misrepresentation.  It's im-
portant to keep in mind that 97% of American small businesses have less than
50 employees each.  Now, in review ...

There are a number of reasons why it's a lie to claim that the rich have to get
richer, in order for jobs to be created.  Firstly, the Bush/Cheney years proved
this to be a lie, in that wealth was being amassed by private individuals, while
unemployment rates skyrocketed.  During the Great Depression, everyone
lost money.  During the Bush Recession, the rich didn't lose dollar value in
their accounts.

Secondly, the personal bank accounts of the rich have nothing to do with cor-
porate retained earnings.  Thus, the health of a business is not dependent upon
the wealth of a Mitt Romney who hided blocks of cash in overseas tax havens.

If corporations don't issue added shares of stock, and if corporate sales don't
 increase, there will be no newly created jobs.  In fact, the individual holders of
disparate wealth who have sent the wealth overseas only takes away from the
circular flow of money, thereby costing jobs.  Making the rich richer in Ameri-
can loses jobs.  Wealth holders such as Romney become the true burden on an
already burdened society.
_____________________________________________________________

During the dirtiest presidential campaign in US memory, Paul Ayn Rand Ryan
stated that we have to lower small business taxes,because small businesses are
the job creators.  Firstly, this is a lie.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, small business created no more than 29% of the jobs.  Large companies
created 45% of them.  Ladies and gentlemen of America, your politicians of
the past 32 years have been a pack of liars.

                                 http://www.bls.gov/ces/cessizeclass.htm

                        The Christmas Season Job Creation Phenomenon

Secondly, consumer demand and disposable income are the only job creators.
If the consumer has no money to spare, no new jobs are created.  Proof of the
fact that increased consumer demand creates jobs is ------- Christmas Season.
Stores hire more people, not because the rich got richer in November, but be-
cause their will be more customers in December.  Case Closed.  The modern
Republicans have been lying to you, all along.

Thirdly, any one large corporation hires more employees than any individual
"small business."  However, Corporate America sent manufacturing and cus-
tomer service operations to low-wage nations.  This is what caused the long-
term unemployment crisis that loomed large in 2008.

Fourthly, there is an ulterior motive in politicians falsely claiming that small
business is the principle job creator in America, and therefore, need to be giv-
en massive tax cuts.  It goes as follows:

Small businesses and billionaires are taxed according to the same tax table,
namely, the Personal Income Table.  This means that, whatever benefit Con-
gress provides for small business, in terms of personal income tax rates, it
simultaneously provides for millionaires and billionaires.  The Republicans
in Congress can pretend to be reaching out to small business owners, and ap-
pear to be all-so-caring, but the reality is that they are doing little more than
serving the interests of the holders of intense and disparate personal wealth.

Why do Republican politicians favor the rich?  Is it ideology?  ANS:  NO.
The holders of wealth have ample amounts of campaign donation dollars.
Favoring the poor isn't good business for a career politician.
____________________________________________________________________

In this age of anonymous & limitless lobbyist campaign donations, this type of thing
is an element of Government to the Highest Bidder, in a sneaky ... pernicious ... the
pea & shell game ... way.   The result is that of advancing the Republican doctrine
of selfishness, for the benefit of a predatory few who seek to accumulate obscene
amounts of wealth without any accountability as to how it comes to be accumulat-
ed ... and at whose expense the accumulating transpires.        

                                Let us unveil the deception, step by step

The forms of small business:  They're something one learns during his/her first se-
mester in Accounting and/or Economics.  The phrase, "small business," is the re-
frain of the Republican chorus, as if Republicans really are looking out for the little
guy.  In all honesty, the phrase is used as a diversion, in a Republican con game.

The con game is too blatant for anyone not to notice who attend on a few (hundred)
economics, accounting, statistics, and business law classes, as did the author of this
article:

To start, small business comes in the following forms:  1] a Sole Proprietorship,
2] a Partnership, 2b] an S (or Z) Corporation, and 2c] an LLC (a limited liability
company.)   S Corporations and LLCs are taxed like partnerships. 

An S Corporation works much like a partnership in that the profits or losses of
the business are reported by each of the stockholders.  This means that each
stockholders' share of the profits or losses constitute personal income or loss.
At last count, any one S Corporation can have no more than 100 stockholders.

The advantage of an S Corporation is that it avoids the double taxation corpora-
tions must face.  Double taxation consists in the following:  A corporation first
pays taxes on its profits.  Shortly thereafter, the individual holders of the corpora-
tion's "preferred stock" pay taxes on the dividends received from the corporation.

The amount paid to the preferred stock shareholder is reported as the stockhold-
er's personal income.  Thus, it's only the amount of money which becomes the divi-
dend payout which is taxed twice.

The important features of the sole proprietorship & partnership are that:

1] ... both business types pay the same tax rate as does a private citizen.  That is
    to say, Sole Proprietorship Income is taxed as Personal Income.

2] ... a person owning a sole proprietorship (as well as the persons owning a part-
    nership) are personally liable, without limit, for all of the losses and liabilities of
    the business owned.  In contrast, corporations have limited liability.  This trans-
    lates into the abusive fact that the wealth in the personal accounts of corporate
    managers is never withdrawn, in order to pay for corporate debts & liabilities.

    This explains the gross mismanagement of corporations during the Bush II years.
    That is to say, management can send its corporation into obliteration and never
    have to personally pay for the damage it caused.  Yet, this damaging of a cor-
    poration is known as Breach of Duty of Loyalty.  In as much, the dissolution of
    Ampad and AKS Steel were cases of Breach of Duty of Loyalty on behalf  of
    the Mitt Romney who is known for 180 degree turns of the issues, concerning
    anything that doesn't benefit the wealthy.  In benefiting the wealthy, Romney is
    merely serving himself.

Now, the Republican politicians keep stating that the tax rates of small business
must be lowered.  In reality, the politicians are pushing forth the pressure to low-
er the personal income tax rates of the unjustly wealthy.  Incidentally, the unjustly
wealthy are defined as those who profited from low-waged sweatshop labor, in
violation of the Association of American States' Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Those American States, incidentally, are the nations of the Western Hemisphere. 

The remedy needed is this: 

Create a separate and distinct tax rate for sole proprietorships and partnerships.
Why has not congress done this?  ANS:  The same reason why congress never
afforded to the executive branch of government the line-item veto.  In the alter-
nate, provide tax incentives, tax credits, and tax deductions to small business
that don't give the holders of personal wealth advantages. 

Let us review: 

Congressman QRS allows Congressman TUV to have Pork Barrel Item XY in a
certain congressional bill.  Congressman TUV allows Congressman QRS to have
Pork Barrel Item YZ in the same bill.  Therefore, both congressmen will vote for
the bill, out of selfish motives ... re-election through Pork Barrel enticements to the
politician's constuency.

Now, if the power of the line-item existed in the US presidency, then it would be
possible that one or both Pork Barrel Items would be deleted from the bill both
congressmen supported.  This means that congressional wheeling & dealing would
no longer be a sure bet.

The United States Congress is a lunch room of school children saying things simi-
lar to, "I'll trade you my peanut butter and jelly sandwich for your potato 
chips."  Yet, you keep voting for the childish, hoping that they will give you a bite
of their sandwich.

The wheeling & dealing which helped, in part, to cause the national debt to stead-
ily increase would be non-existent, if the line-item veto existed.  This means that
each congressional member would no longer be able to manipulate a way to geet
pork barrel tax dollars into his/her constituency.  Pork Barrel dollars, at the ex-
pense of the taxpayer, add-up, as in an increased national debt.

Do not be deceived.  There is military spending which is pork barrel politicking.
Such enormous spending is NOT done for the defense of a nation which already
has two oceans and an ocean's gulf heavily protecting it.

The expression used to be, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."  In as
much, Congress refuses to grant the president the line-item veto, so that the mem-
bers of Congress can get re-elected.  In order for them to be reelected, they need
to deliver pork to their constituencies.   This brings us to the reason why congress
keeps the tax rate of personal income and sole proprietorships the same rate:

In pushing for lower tax rates for the unjustly rich, Republican politicians can de-
ceptively act as if they are caring deeply for the small business owner, being that
both people are taxed according to the same tax table.  The politicians support-
ing a lowering of the tax rate of those who unfairly became wealthy scratch the
back of the politicians supporting small business, while simultaneously making
richer those who are already obscenely wealthy.  As a reminder, the obscenity
of their wealth only exists in that they got it unfairly.  After all, common Ameri-
can citizens can't complete with foreign sweatshop wages.  Therefore, present
corporate executives are penthouse thieves.

Numerous American small businesses don't make nearly as much as certain
billionaires.  Thus, the con game isn't easily discernible by those unversed in
economics.  This is want makes it a con game.  None the less, the small busi-
ness owner and the unconscionable billionaire, as well as the rare individual
who made his money morally (without sweatshop wage labor and without
future contacts manipulation, etc).  The Republican ploy is to make the tax
rate a carrot-and-stick game for the small business owner who will not at-
tain to the income level of corporate billionaires who have NOT been pay-
ing their fair share and who have been the ultimate leeches, in sucking the
blood of underpaid workers throughout the world.  Look throughout your
house, car, and clothing ... at the "made in" labels.  How much of your pro-
perty was made in a sweatshop by a low-waged worker?

Then comes the incessant quest for deregulation.  Deregulation is the act of
ridding a nation of the police division which protects its citizen from the cor-
porate abuses of power and financial influence.  Deregulation is the quest of
Republican lawmakers to have lawlessness and disorder prevail.  The only
good economy is a fair economy.
______________________________________________________________

August 4, 2016

Statistics hold that the Democrats were the ones who created jobs. Not the Republicans who caused a massive trade balance deficit.

The very Democrat-influenced City of Pittsburgh; home of six
Super Bowl Championships and other professional sports crowns,
as well as the birth place of commercial radio, the drive-thru
gas station, the public television station, robotics institutes,
wire cable suspension bridge, Bingo, motion picture theater,
air brakes, aluminum-shelled skyscraper, Zippo Lighters, etc.
It was thrown into havoc by Reaganomics.
Entry Note, aka ad limine statement, aka preliminary statement:

I am neither a Democrat nor Republican.  Thus, my writings aren't propaganda for
any one side of the two-sided American political system.  In addition, I am neither
a Communist, nor a Socialist, nor a neo-Confederate, a nor Oligarchist, nor a Nazi,
nor an Anarchist, nor Libertarian.  I am neither a member of the Green Party,  nor
the Natural Law Party, nor the Constitutional Party, nor the American Conservative
Party, nor the Modern Whig Party, etc., etc., etc.  All in all, this article is NOT an
advertisement for the Democratic Party.  However, it is a blanket condemnation
of the Republican Party and all things Republican.
________________________________________

A little while ago, I monitored a few minutes of the Rush Limbaugh Show, only to
find that the Viagra smuggler and his advertisers continue to lie to millions of right
wing conservatives, many of whom are located in socially isolated and backward
areas of America.  The following phrase from an advertiser who was selling some
type of book was stated in a tone of indignant certainty and end-of-the-world ur-
gency: "Republicans create jobs and Democrats lose them."

False.  He outright lied.  The opposite has been statistically true, for decades. 

Enter Harry Truman, a president who lost popularity at the end his presidency, to
the tune of an embarrassing 22% approval rating, as of February of 1952.  Now,
the typical Reagan admirer who can barely read his NASCAR program without
moving his lips would immediately assume that Truman's unpopularity was due
to a very high unemployment rate.  However, in 1952, unemployment was never
higher than 3.4%.  In fact, it was as low as 2.9% that year ... under the unpopular
Harry Truman, a Democrat.  The score in the post-WWII survey is Democrats 1
and Republicans coming to bat.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=Harry%20S.%20Truman

At this point, keep in mind that the way of calculating the U.S. unemployment rate
was changed during the early Reagan years, around the time when the rate was 10.8%.
Therefore, the new way of figuring the unemployment rate made unemployment look
much less than it actually was during Reagan's second term.  This was equivalent to
playing with loaded dice.  Let's continue:

Under Eisenhower, the unemployment rate rose to 7.1%.  Thus, under a Republican,
the rate of unemployment doubled.  It later decreased to 5.1%..  However, when Ike
left the White House, the rate was 6.6%.  Thus, the unemployment rate under Repub-
lican Dwight D. Eisenhower was much higher than when he entered office.  It's now
Democrats 2 and Republicans 0.

At this point, keep in mind that the Republican platform then was much different than
it was today.  The Republican Party, even during the 1972 campaign, committed itself
to LOW military spending.  Let's continue the post-war survey:

At the fourth month of Kennedy's presidency, the unemployment rate was 7.1%.
It then decreased to 5.5% at the tragic end of his presidency.  The score is now
Democrats 3 and Republicans 0.

Under Texas Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, the unemployment rate was never over
5.6%.  When Johnson left office the rate was a very low 3.4%.  It's now very con-
vincing.  Democrats 4 and Republicans 0.  Rush  Limbaugh propagates lies.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=Lyndon%20Baines%20Johnson

When Nixon entered office, the unemployment rate was 3.5%.  It increased to 6.1% and
was 5.5% when he resigned.  Under yet another Republican's presidency, the unemploy-
ment rate rose.  Democrats 5 and Republicans 0.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=Richard%20Milhous%20Nixon

Under Ford, it rose to 9.0%.  Yet, the economy was vibrant, to the point of the United
States being the #2 exporting nation on earth.  Thus, the health of the economy showed
the moral acceptability of Distributive Justice, in terms of Welfare payments and food
stamp allotments.  None the less, the unemployment rate was 7.5% when Ford depart-
ed from the White House, meaning that is rose 2 percentage points during his presiden-
cy.  Democrats 6 and Republicans 0.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=Gerald%20Rudolph%20Ford

Under Jimmy Carter, the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6%.  Then came April 1980.
The rate started rising.   At the end of Carter's presidency, the rate was the same as it
was when Ford left office.  This is a tie.  Thus, it's still Dems 6 and Repubs 0.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_for_president_term.jsp?president=James%20Earl%20Carter

Under Reagan, the unemployment rate sky-rocketed to 10.8%.  Then came a change
in the calculation of the unemployment rate, making the statistic look not as bad as
it was.  Plus, Reagan increased federal jobs, and used the taxpayer to get the unem-
ployment rate to drop.  The added feature was that the pay rate of certain types of
jobs recaptured by those previously laid-off dropped dropped.  Therefore, Reagan's
unemployment decline was artificial in more than one way.

Even though the way to calculate the unemployment rate was changed for Reagan's
second term, the rate still would have decreased a bit, if the calculation method used
during the Carter years was used during Reagan's second term.  This means that the
Republicans get one point, even though the decline in the rate was done at the ex-
pense of taxpayers ... and also done at the expense a private citizen's purchasing
power, in as far as concerning housing costs and disposable income.

This is the Republicans' only score.  You now see why the Republican campaign
managers throughout America create Ronald Reagan Hype.

They don't use Ike, because he was vehemently against exorbitant military spending.

They don't use Nixon, on account of him resigning in disgrace.

They don't use Ford, even though he managed to get unemployment to drop to 7.5%.

They don't use George Bush the First, because he championed the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and today's Republican is heartless and ruthless.

George Bush the Second destroyed the future of America.  So, Republicans sing the
praises of the unemployment rate decrease during Reagan's second term, while never
admitting that Reagan caused the rate to sky-rocket in the first place.  Quite frankly,
any action would have gotten the Reagan-induced 10.8% unemployment rate to go
down.  Do not be deceived.  Ronald Reagan was exceptionally stupid, exceptional-
ly worthless, and void of any foresight.  He was a very fake actor.

Concerning the other recent presidents:

Under the first George Bush (Herbert Walker Bush), the rate was as low as 5.0%,
early in his presidency.  It then rose to 7.8%.  When he left the White House, the
rate was  down to 7.3%.  Thus, it was almost the same unemployment rate as the
one in existence when Jimmy Carter left office.

When George Bush the First entered office, the rate was 5.4%, meaning that it rose
1.9% during his presidency.  He elected to not use the artificial means to lower the
rate as did Reagan, because the Berlin Wall had collapsed.  There was no cause to
increase the size of the military and the non-military federal government.  In as
much, the score is now Democrats 7 and the Republicans 1.

During the Clinton years, the unemployment rate steadily dropped.  Arkansas native,
William Jefferson (as in Jefferson Davis) Clinton, inherited a 7.3% unemployment
rate.  Under him, it went as low as 3.8%.  When Clinton left office, it was 4.2%.
Democrats 8 and Republicans 1.

Under the second George Bush, the rate did a roller coaster act.  He inherited a 4.2%
rate.  It elevated to 6.3%, dropped to 4.6%, and then rose to 7.8% at the end of his
presidency.  The Great Recession ensued.  Democrats 9 and Republicans 1.

Under Obama, the rate was as high as 10%.  It is presently at 7.4%.  There is no
debate that the 112th Congress deliberately sought to sabotage the Obama presi-
dency, displaying hypocrisy in the process.  One example of its hypocrisy goes
as follows:

The US Congress liberally gave debt ceiling limit increases to Republican Ronald
Reagan (18 times) and Republican George WMD Bush (7 times.)   Yet, the TEA
Party congressional members used the ceiling increase as a weapon of economic
blackmail during the Obama years, sending America's credit rating downward in
the process ... thereby sabotaging all of America, in the attempt to unseat Obama.

The final score is Democrats 10 and the Republicans 1 in Job Creation.

In conclusion, the unemployment statistics are on the side of the Democrats, show-
ing that Rush Limbaugh and TEA Party politicians lie, in order to gain popularity.
This constitutes Republicans gaining power and influence by fraud.

For unemployment stats, additionally refer to:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

August 3, 2016

The Great American Income Gap

At this point in history, the title, United States of America, is an oxymoron.
This is because America is anything but united.  It's polarized and disparate.
For example, in 2007, income inequality ended up reaching an all-time high
in the United States, up to that time.  Then came the economic crisis of 2008.
Meanwhile, the Republican propaganda machine kept referring to the rich as
hard working & heroic patriotic Americans.  Well, in the Year 2008, "only
19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families mak-
ing over $10 million came from wages and salaries.Wealth, Power,
and  Income, by G. William Domhoff.

In as much, living off of interest-bearing financial securities, rental fees, and
absentee business profits, without lifting a finger, doesn't constitute hard work.
Neither does sucking the blood of foreign sweatshop workers to whom you
owe back-pay.

Advance to 2009, and then to 2012:  Between 2009 and 2012, the incomes of
the top 1% rose 31.4%.  The incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 0.4%.  This
is not four percent.  Rather, it's Point Four Percent.  Thus, the top 1% had 31%
more wealth gathered than did the rest of America, as a statistical average.
For the purposes of current statistical analysis, the top 1% of households is
defined as those which made over $394,000 in 2012.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

See also:   http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-income-inequality-20130910,0,5392493.story

Now, as a percentage of 100%, the income of the top 1% of America in the
Year 2012 was 19.3%, the highest it has been in over 100 years.  The closest
income portion gained by the wealthiest 1% was in 1927, two years before
the historic stock market crash; 18.7%.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/10/pay-gap-richest-poorest/2793343/

Concerning the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2008
and 2009, there is one huge difference.  During the Great Depression, the price
of the stocks of the richest corporations dropped.  During the George Bush Re-
cession, those stock prices rose.  


The average wage earner of 2010 made $39,959.30.  Of these income earners,
66.2% made less than the average wage.  In 2011, the average wage earned had
an income of $41,211.36.  Of these income earners, 66.6% made less than the
average wage.  The statistics for 2012 were not schedules to be disclosed until
mid-October 2013.
                                 http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2010

The average wage earner of 2011 made $41,211.36.  Of these income earners,
66.6% made less than the average wage.  In fact, over 50% percent of the Amer-
ican wage earner of 2011 made less than the median age which was estimated to
be $26,965.43.  The 2012 statistics were not schedules to be available until the
middle of October, 2013.
                                          http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2011

In 2007, 20% of the people in America owed 85.1% of all privately-held wealth.
The top 1% held 60.6% of all financial securities, while the bottom 1% of America
held 1.5% of them.

The bottom 90% held (or still holds) 18.8% of all stocks and mutual fund ownership,
while the top 1% held (or still holds) 38.3% of it.  The bottom 90% in the not very
United States possessed 20.6% of the trusts, while the top 1% owned 38.9% of
them.  This means that the various middle classes have an approximate 20% sway
in the stock market and trust funds, while the top 10% has 80% of the sway.

Households whose income was less than $75,000 paid more federal income tax than
household making over $1 million.

The 15% tax bracket generated more federal revenue than all capital gains taxes and
the two top tax brackets combined.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/

The richest 10% own approximately 70% of the nation's wealth, 25% of which is
owned by 1/2 of 1% of the wealthiest in America.  In contrast, the poorest 40%
of America have debts which equal their assets, meaning that they own virtually
nothing.  Approximately 20% of Americans receive half of all income in Ameri-
ca.  This amounts to ten times more than what the poorest 20% receive.  In ad-
dition, the richest 1% receive as much income as do the poorest 40%.

http://books.google.com/books?id=YS69fMlIUX0C&pg=PA487&lpg=PA487&dq=10%25+richest+poorest+income+assets+america&source=bl&ots=6RnmjCIZWT&sig=6PM41dV-gZsDGa92Rm62P1fUUO8&hl=en&ei=udmlTt_wBand0QHZwrSdBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=10%25%20richest%20poorest%20income%20assets%20america&f=false

The richest 10% in the US allegedly acquired 30.5% of the US income distribution.
The poorest 10% in the same US allegedly acquired 1.8% of the same distribution.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/eco-economy 

Corporate America's Tax Share

Corporate taxes paid for a quarter of the federal budget in the 1950's.  They paid for
20% of the federal programs in the 1960s and only 11% of it during the late 1990's.
Today, corporate taxes pay for a mere 6% of federal government's expenses.  This
shows that the Republican Party lied to America, in its claiming that corporations are
weighted-down with heavy tax burdens.

In the Year 2008, 22 corporations paid zero income tax and received a collective
total of $3.3 billion in tax rebates.  In 2009, 49 corporations paid zero income tax,
despite the fact that they collectively made $78.6 billion in pre-tax profits.  They
then received a collective $10.8 billion in tax rebates.  In 2010, 37 corporations
paid zero income tax.  They ended up receiving a collective $7.8 billion in tax re-
bates.  The following explains things in relative detail.

http://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2013/10/280-surveyed-corporations.html

The following is an invaluable must-read, concerning corporate tax statistics.
It's required reading for those who still possess a conscience and a heart not
made of colder versions of stone:

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf 


The Trade Balance Deficit

The United States has not had an international trade balance surplus (in trade with
all nations ) since 1975.  See:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt

At the end of 1975, the U.S. was #2 in international trade.  The year before Reagan
entered office, the U.S. was #127.  When Ronald Reagan left office, the U.S. was
#139.  When Clinton left office, the U.S. was #152.  When Bush Jr left office, the
U.S. was #156.  After Obama's first year in office, the U.S. was #143.

http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=eco_bal_of_pay_cur_acc_bal_net_tra_in_goo_and_ser_cur_us-net-trade-goods-services-us&country=us-united-states

Sweatshop Importation Has Been Mathematically
Sabotaging the American Economy, All Along


Foreign slave labor profiteering achieves the following results:

1} Increases an offending nation's international trade deficit.
2} Reduces the same nation's gross domestic product.
3} Deceases the offending nation's per capita income.

At this point, view the United States trade balance deficit through
the years, in its trade of goods (not services) with China, alone:

                 U.S. IMPORTS                        U.S. EXPORTS
              from sweatshop China                to protectionist China
        (This is money paid to China)   (This is money paid to the U.S.A.)


2012            $425 billion                              $110 billion
2011            $399 billion                              $104 billion
2010            $365 billion                                $92 billion
2009            $296 billion                                $69 billion
2008            $337 billion                                $69 billion
2007            $321 billion                                $62 billion
2006            $287 billion                                $53 billion
2005            $243 billion                                $41 billion
2004            $196 billion                                $34 billion
2003            $152 billion                                $28 billion


10yr total: $3.02 Trillion                              $600 Billion       
 paid to Slave Labor China                  paid to an acquiescent U.S.A.


The 10 year Chino/American Trade NET approximately equals: 
MINUS  $2,4,000,000,000. That's only trade with China.  This is 
goods only.  When including services, it's actually a little less.

The Total 10 yr Trade Balance Deficit comprising trade with all 
nations with whom the United States has traded, as is charted be-
low, is MINUS  $5,959,000,000,000.  This comprises trade with 
all nations.   This comprises goods and services.

The hypocrisy is that trillions of American dollars stayed in the
 permanent possession of the Chinese Communist Dictatorship, 
in the name of Democracy and Capitalism, as well as Republican 
Party Values.

Keep in mind that the ten-year Trade Balance Deficit is $5,959,000,000,000.
Money is being injected into dictatorships, leaving America.  The workers of 
China cannot afford American.  Plus, America is no longer a manufacturing
nation.  Thus, American dollars empower dictatorships and even turn them
into effective garrisons.  Refer  to the following link:

 http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2012

Now, view the total 10 yr US trade balance acct, year by year, concerning 
trade with all nations, in approximate numbers:

          Concerning GOODS only        GOODS and SERVICES
 

2012       minus $735 billion                     minus $540 billion
2011       minus $737 billion                     minus $588 billion
2010       minus $645 billion                     minus $500 billion
2009       minus $505 billion                     minus $381 billion           
2008       minus $830 billion                     minus $698 billion
2007       minus $818 billion                     minus $696 billion
2006       minus $835 billion                     minus $753 billion
2005       minus $780 billion                     minus $708 billion
2004       minus $663 billion                     minus $605 billion
2003       minus $540 billion                     minus $490 billion


Total:   minus $7.102 trillion                 minus $5.959 trillion 
                                                          
Refer to the following link: 
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt

In the month of August 2011, the Trade Balance Deficit with China, alone, increased
by 7.42%, to $29 billion.  This is the statistic for one month of trading,  in terms of
goods and services combined.  This happens to be a new record.  China came out
on top for the 304th consecutive month, in its trading with the U.S.  Therefore, the
United States has not had a trade balance surplus, when trading with the Chinese
Communist Dictatorship, since April of 1986.  This amounts to 24 years and 16
months of money leaking into a dictatorship, by the billions per month, nonstop.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/trade-deficit-august-2011-456-billion 

More than 40 percent of all consumer goods purchased in the U.S. last year were
manufactured in China, according to the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commis-
sion.  In addition, to cut the present trade balance deficit in half, according to a
former chief economist of the U.S. International Trade Commission, would cre-
ate 5 million jobs.  He also states what I have been stating for years:  "The man-
ufacturing bust from offshoring by multinationals is at the core of why the econ-
omy remains sluggish.  It explains why government operations are harder to fund 
and people can’t find jobs."  See:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2011/10/23/chinas-currency-manipulationhurtsohio.html 

The average compensation package for a CEO in 2010

In the Year 2010, the average compensation package for a typical Standard & Poor
500 CEO was $11,358,445, according to the AFL-CIO.  That constituted a 23%
increase in merely one year's time, according to the same AFL-CIO.  In addition,
the compensation summary for 299 of the S&P 500 CEO's totaled $3,396,175,055.
That's $3.4 billion.

Now, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average weekly salary of
workers, for the First Quarter of 2011, was $753.  In addition, 753 x 52 = $39,156.
For African American males, the median salary was $693 per week, while the med-
ian income for Caucasian American males was $850 per week.  This means that the
average yearly compensation of the average S&P 500 CEO is equal to the salary of
290 median-income employees  ... 257 Caucasian median-income workers  ... 316
African-American median income workers.  Incidentally, when seasonally adjusted,
the median income for the 2nd Q of 2011 was $756.

Let us review:  The compensation package of 299 S&P 500 CEO's is equivalent
to the salaries of 86,734 median employees.  Now, the average base salary of the
typical S&P 500 CEO is $1,093,989  ...   before one adds "awards," "incentive
plan compensation," "other compensation," and bonus pay.  The initial compensa-
tion of an S&P 500 CEO constitutes a salary equivalent to 27 median workers.
However, the full CEO compensation package equals the income of 290 median
workers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm 

The U.S. National Debt

In November of 2011, the Total Public Debt reached the $15 trillion mark.
Concerning the Debt-to-GDP Ratio, the U.S. National Debt is 99.25% of
United States' Gross Domestic Product.  As of July 2013, it reached the
$16.8 billion mark.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

The Post WWII & Vietnam War Presidencies

At the start of 1945, the national debt was 117% of GDP.   The war was still rag-
ing.   Then, in 1949, the national debt was reduced to 93% of GDP.   In 1953, it
was reduced to 71.4%.   Under Ike, it went from 71.4% to 55.2%.  Then, under
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter it went from 55.2% to 35.8%.

This illustrates that Reagan and the two George Bushes were responsible for sig-
nificantly elevating the national debt in relation to the GDP.  Under them, the US
national debt rose 61.4 percentage points.  This shows that the Republican Party
is not the party of fiscal responsibility.  It's campaign platform has been a lie.

Under Jimmy Carter, the debt went to $1 trillion.
Under Ronald Reagan, it was tripled to $3 trillion.
Under George Bush Sr, it crawled to $4.18 trillion.
Under Bill NAFTA Clinton, it went to $5.72 trillion.
Under George Bush Jr, it skyrocketed to $10.62 trillion.
At the end of Barack Obama's first term, it was $16.3 trillion. 

Military Spending: 

Even though U.S. military spending declined (in real terms) by 5.6% in 2012, it was
still 69% higher than in 2001.

In 2012, $19.2 billion was expended on Atomic Energy Defense Provisions.  In the
Year 2001, it was $12.9.

http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2013/files/sipri-yearbook-2013-chapter-3-section-2 

$729 Billion in 2010 for
the Depts of Defense & Homeland Security


In the Year 2010, the United States spent more on its military than did twenty-two
nations combined.  These were Nations #2 to #23 in military spending.  The United
States spent more on its military than did the sum total of China, France, England,
Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Brazil, South Korea, Canada,
Australia, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Israel, the Netherlands, Greece,
Columbia, Taiwan, and Poland combined.  United States military spending for the
nine years prior to 2001 was over $3.4 trillion.   Military spending for the nine years
after the Year 2001 was over $5.1 trillion.

If China were to spend on its military what it did last year, year after year, it would
take it 44 years to spend $5 trillion.   If the third highest military spender, France,
would do similar, it would take France 82 years to spend $5 trillion on its military.
It would take the Russian Federation 96 years.

Going one step further, it would take China six years to spend what America spent
in one year, if China were to spend the same for its military, pursuant to constant
2009 dollars.   It would take France 11 years to spend what America spent last
year, and it would take Russia 13 years to do it, if Russia and France were to
spend the same amount for each successive year.

If France were the population of the United States, and if it spent in proportion to
the American  population, then France would only have spent $305 billion on it's
military in 2010.   That is $382 billion less than America, when measuring per ca-
pita costs.

Now, if China were the population of America and spent in per capita proportion-
ality to the United States, then China would have only spent $26.3 billion dollars
on its military last year.   If Russia were to have done the same, it would have on-
ly spent $113.2 billion.   This is much less than America's expenditures.

If America had the population of China, and if it were to spend in exact per capita
proportion to the population of China, then America would have spent $2.974 tril-
lion in 2010.   China only spent $114 to $119 billion last year, and China is one of
the nuclear powers.

If America were the size of France and spent according to the 62.6 million popula-
tion of France, then the United States would have spent $140 billion in 2010.  The
Republic of France only spent $61 billion, and France is a nuclear power.

Finally, if the United States had the population of Russia and if it spent according to
the Russian population of 141 million, America would have spent $309 billion.  Yet,
Russia only spent $52 billion and Russia remains a nuclear power.


Military Cost Per Citizen

In the Year 2010, $2,237 per American citizen was spent on the U.S. military.  This
amounts to $4,907 to $5,284 per American taxpayer.   There are approximate 130
to 140 million American income taxpayers.   However, any American who buys an
appliance, a book, a DVD, kitchenware, art, or jewelry automatically constitutes a
taxpayer at the cash register.

Continuing further, the equivalent of $368 dollars per Russian citizen was spent on
the Russian military.   The equivalent of $974 dollars per French citizen was spent
on the French military, and the equivalent of only $85 per Chinese citizen was spent
on the Chinese military in the Year 2010.  Concerning our closest allies, the United
Kingdom spent the equivalent of $922 per subjects of the queen.   All of these na-
tions are nuclear powers with nuclear costs.

The equivalent of $1,699 per Saudi citizen was spent on the Saudi military.  How-
ever, Saudi Arabia has a tremendous economic resource under its ground.  Plus,
Israel, an imperiled nation, spent the equivalent of $1,747 per citizen on its military
in 2010.   Yet, that is $490 less than an America which is protected by two oceans
and one gulf.   None the less, the per capita military expenditures of many other na-
tions is much lower than Israel and Saudi Arabia.  For example:

The equivalent of $851 per Danish citizen was spent on Denmark's military, while
the equivalent of $703 per Dutch citizen was spent on the Netherland's military, in
the Year 2010.  Former Ottoman power, Turkey, spent the equivalent of $213 per
citizen, while former WWII power, Germany, spent the equivalent of $562 per citi-
zen.  Japan spent the equivalent of $400 on its military.

The other former axis power, namely Italy, spent $631 per citizen on its 2010 mili-
tary, while America's close ally, Australia, spent the equivalent of $903 per citizen.
"Evil evil" Venezuela spent the equivalent of $109 per citizen, while Argentina spent
the equivalent of $77.   North Korea spent the equivalent of an estimated $1,000
per citizen, while South Korea spent the equivalent of $507 per citizen.

http://milexdata.sipri.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_3d327067-a267-53a8-8ddd-d484126a4892.html