October 4, 2016

Tuesday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (100416)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 8:30 am

This open thread is meant for commenters to post on items either briefly noted below (if any) or otherwise not covered at this blog. Rules are here.



  1. Iraq body count since Obama precipitously pulled US troops out since 2011: 67,927


    (note: you will have to manually add up the year end tallies of 2011 to 2016 since this site is more dedicated to dissing the US by including the Gulf War casualties.)

    Is the US media reporting on it? No? Why not? Would that make Hillary Clinton’s soft diplomacy look really bad?

    To call the results of Clinton’s soft diplomacy incompetence is to grossly understate the total collapse of US foreign policy. The appropriate adjectives would be, “horrific”, “catastrophic”, “devastating”, “calamitous”, etc.

    And we haven’t even addressed what they caused in Syria through their meddling in the internal affairs of another country by actively supporting a failed civil war.

    Comment by dscott — October 4, 2016 @ 9:44 am

  2. In other news smothered by the US media:

    Hillary Clinton’s H-1B Outsourcing Program Has 100,000 Foreign Workers in Midwest White-Collar Jobs


    The huge extra supply of foreign university labor, according to the law of supply and demand, pushes down the salaries earned by American professionals in those states. Nationwide, this so-called “immigration tax” annually transfers $500 billion away from blue-collar and white-collar Americans towards employers, Wall Street, and new immigrants, according to a Harvard analysis.

    Gee, wouldn’t $500 billion kept in the US economy have increased the GDP benefiting US citizens? But Hillary is against this idea as it means her greedy crony campaign supporters ($200,000 speeches) would have to shell out more money to actual US workers instead of their own pocket. It is apparently okay for the long suffering US taxpayer to subsidize Facebook, Silicone Valley and others via H-1B visas to pay for welfare programs for US citizens unemployed by them.

    IMO, it would be cheaper to pay the increased cost of a product or service employing an American than paying more taxes supporting the same on welfare. Why? Because creating a net tax payer is worth twice the cost of a net tax consumer. E.g. if the government gets $10,000 in taxes from a net tax producer, but has to shell out $10,000 to a net tax consumer, the government has lost $20,000 per consumer because they are not a net producer. If you are not contributing, that means you are consuming. Those who are consuming are not producing GDP that benefits society.

    So taking out $500 billion of the US economy to be sent over seas instead of employing US citizens means at least a trillion dollars in lost GDP. That’s a huge percentage loss to a $14 trillion GDP economy. Here besides taxes and regulations is the drag upon the US economy contributing to this lack luster GDP performance during Obama’s reign of incompetence. All of these are forced errors in economic stewardship.

    Comment by dscott — October 4, 2016 @ 10:11 am

  3. Here is an economic problem disguised as a social problem. When you ask the wrong question you get the wrong answer:

    Social Security Is Going Broke


    …Long-term projections rely on demographic and economic assumptions about the future. The CBO and Social Security Trustees differ in their assumptions, so they have different projections for Social Security’s insolvency date.

    Both sets of assumptions are estimates. Both models have a degree of uncertainty.

    Demographic changes directly affect Social Security’s solvency. The program is a pay-as-you-go system that relies on current workers to finance benefits for current retirees.

    For fertility rates, the trustees’ model predicts a 2.0 total rate, slightly higher than the CBO’s predicted 1.9.

    As for mortality rates, the CBO assumes they will decline faster than does the trustees’ model…

    …The CBO predicts retirement of baby boomers will push labor participation rates down from 62.5 percent today to 60.6 percent in 2026 to below 60 percent by 2030. In comparison, the trustees’ report predicts labor force participation rates gradually will rise after 2020 because increased life expectancy means people stay in the workforce longer…

    The entire argument revolves around demographics and this is completely wrong. People looking at this problem have accepted the false paradigm that SS is supposed to be a pay as you go system. In effect they legitimize a variant of the PONZI scheme. Then compound the wrong direction by looking at everything else other than the underlying support structure, i.e. jobs and investment performance. As long as those who look at the problem insist on focusing on the fringe issues they can not achieve the solution.

    The real issue is the farcical idea that buying special interest bonds from the US government is an appropriate investment for a means of wealth creation for the beneficiaries of the trust fund. The second is related, the prioritization of the government to facilitate economic growth by not imposing policies (taxes, regulations and foreign worker visas) that hinder business activity and promote US citizens not working.

    How is it that I as an individual can invest via a 401k and out perform SS on a dollar for dollar basis? How is it that I could fully fund my retirement at greater efficacy than all the big minds running the federal government? I could have retired a millionaire at age 55 IF I would have been allowed to invest every penny of the SS tax instead in the S&P 500 and Dow 30 indexes. This speaks to the gross incompetence of government.

    Comment by dscott — October 4, 2016 @ 11:41 am

  4. BOOM!

    UPDATE: Guccifer 2.0 Leaks More Clinton Foundation Documents, PROMISES MORE TO COME…

    Jim Hoft Oct 4th, 2016 7:17 pm 57 Comments



    Print the chart, see how taxpayer dollars from TARP ended up in the pockets of greedy entitled Democrats.

    That’s tax-payer bailout money that went right to the pockets of Democrat PACs!

    Comment by dscott — October 5, 2016 @ 6:13 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.