Both President Bush and President Obama own this one. The question is -- and I'm not qualified to weigh in -- whether it was necessary to cure that nasty liquidity crisis following the Lehman Brothers thingy.
In a trend that continues to worsen, more Illinoisans found themselves unemployed in the month of July.
Illinois lost more jobs during the month of July than any other state in the nation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report. After losing 7,200 jobs in June, Illinois lost an additional 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July. The report also said Illinoiss unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 percent. This marks the third consecutive month of increases in the unemployment rate.
Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinoiss economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinoiss employment numbers have done nothing but decline.
Data released today by the bureau confirms this downward trajectory. When it comes to putting people back to work, Illinois is going backwards. Since January, Illinois has dropped 89,000 people from its employment rolls.
Industry has been fleaing Illinois for over 40 years. High workman's compensation and other forms of taxes have made it a very unattractive location for businesses.
Like the rural lifestyle, gardening, fresh air? Thinking about buying a few wooded acres and building a $350,000 home and a barn, maybe keep a horse or two. Your property taxes may approach $8500. per year in some counties and higher in others. Somebody has to pay the school taxes, and you're 'rich' you see!
#3
A Primer for East Coast Earthquake refugees and hyper ventilating hairspray people.
Use these three rules as a filter and everything makes sense:
The 'Chicago Way (and Illinois)' Rules of economics and governing
1)Your money is my money and my money is my money
2)We can't be broke, we still have checks
3)Nobody wants somebody that nobody sent
Posted by: Bill Griling5080 ||
08/24/2011 11:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I live in Will County, Besoeker, and you are seriously underestimating property taxes here.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/24/2011 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I wonder how many major corporations are looking at a possible move to a "low tax, regulation" State? Boeing HQ, ect?
#8
Pub DuPage Co. is no shrinking violet at high real estate taxes either. -- Lesson if you are a pol in Illinois you are big gov no matter what party you belong to!
(Note to pappy - basis of some of my golf argument -- and to think when I bought here 25 yrs ago the tax was only about a grand)
Posted by: Water Modem ||
08/24/2011 20:23 Comments ||
Top||
Florida Republican Congressman John Mica offered the following morally clear Amendment (5/25/2011-H.AMDT.318 (A018) Amends H.R.1540)
Amendment requires that the rules of engagement [ROE] allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.
#1
Yep, I know. It's a living, breathing interpretation thingy. However, public Congressional interrogation hearings of the uniformed leadership would be interesting in hearing their waffling on the latter two as it impacts this amendment.
ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct.
Come on don't you want to hear a flag officer utter the words 'kinetic encounter'? /sarc off
Is it too early to say that Barack Obama has lost Florida? Not according to a new survey from Magellan Strategies, which finds the incumbent sharply under water in all key election categories. His job approval and re-elect numbers are an identical 37/57, while his "image rating" -- favorability -- is almost as bad:
Currently, the President's image rating is upside down with 40% of respondents having a favorable opinion of him, and 55% having an unfavorable opinion. Looking at responses among key voter subgroups, 52% of women, 53% of independents, 67% of Hispanics, and 58% of seniors have an unfavorable opinion of the President. Among voters aged 18 to 29, a vital voter subgroup in Barack Obama's 2008 victory, 39% have a favorable image of him and 49% have an unfavorable image of him.
Among all respondents, only 37% approve of the job the President is doing and 57% disapprove of the job he is doing. Again looking at key voter subgroups, 53% of women, 56% of independents, 72% of Hispanics and 59% of seniors disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing. The most alarming number for the President and his election team is that 26% of Democrats disapprove of the job he is doing. Among voters aged 18 to 29, 48% approve of the job he is doing and 52% disapprove of thejob he is doing.
Among all respondents, 37% think Barack Obama deserves re‐election and 57% think he does not deserve re‐election. Among women voters, 55% do not think the President deserves re‐election. Among other key voting subgroups, 55% of independents, 72% of Hispanics, 60% of seniors, and 27% of Democrats think the President does not deserve re‐election. Among voters aged 18 to 29, 38% think Barack Obama deserves re‐election and 50% think he does not deserve re‐election.
Obama won Florida in 2008 by three points over John McCain in a close-fought battle. Turnout in that election favored Democrats by three points, 37/34/29. In 2010, as Republicans rebounded in the Tea Party midterms, the turnout evened up at 36/36/29. In the Magellan sample, Democrats have a three-point edge at 42/39/19, with independents obviously undersampled. That model assumes Democrats turn out in stronger numbers in 2012 than they did in 2008, which seems highly unlikely for an incumbent with 37/57 re-elect and 40/55 favorability numbers.
If he's hoping for help with independents, he can forget it. The underrepresentation of independents in this survey probably helped Obama with these numbers rather than hurt him. His favorability among indies is 35/53, worse than the overall number. Obama's job approval among indies is 37/56, just about the same as the overall number.
Even with the somewhat-friendly sampling, Obama loses all three head-to-head matchups posed by Magellan. Mitt Romney beats Obama by ten points, 49/39, and Rick Perry beats him by 7 at 46/39. Obama only gets into the 40s against Michele Bachmann, who still edges him by a single point, 43/42. Romney wins an eleven-point margin among the undersampled independents (44/33) and Perry wins that category by 7 (38/31). Only Bachmann loses the independent vote 33/37 to Obama. Romney is the only Republican to win both men and women (Perry gets edged by a single point, Bachmann down 7), but all three win the senior vote -- and all three win Hispanic voters by landslide margins.
When an incumbent president can't get above 39% against two named primary candidates of the opposition party, it's a sure sign of impending doom in that state. Florida's 29 electoral votes seem destined to go to Republicans. I hope these poll numbers stay true to election day. It will be a 56 state sweep if the trend holds true.
For what I have seen in the last election cyles if you are going to win without needing Florida then you _also_ win in Florida by a nice margin. The fact he is so deeply underwater in Florida points at his opponent winning so handily in other states he will not even need Florida.
Harry Truman famously said, "The buck stops here." Ronald Reagan told the nation during the Iran-Contra scandal, "I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration." When Barack Obama's economic policies failed and his approval ratings plummeted, he followed the precedents of his predecessors and manfully admitted that ... it's all Congress' fault:
President Barack Obama says his low approval rating is a reflection of public unhappiness with Congress.
Obama tells CBS in an interview broadcast Sunday that he's "impacted," just like Congress, when people aren't happy with Washington.
Allahpundit demolishes this argument on the facts, but the problem goes beyond a factual debate. Voters are telling Obama that they're not happy with his performance and the economic results of his policies. Instead of acknowledging that, he's excusing himself from responsibility by essentially saying that voters are too stupid to distinguish between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Maybe he can tell himself that in retirement, which is coming a lot sooner than he'd like with numbers like these.
#3
If I were the Pub nominee and in debate #1 with Obama, I'd first find a way to ask him why it's everyone else's fault, from Bush to Congress to the Tea Party to the earthquake. Then I'd turn to the cameras and audience, raise my hand and pledge that if elected president, I'd assume responsibility for the office on the same day I was sworn in.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/24/2011 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yah, but who spent a load of money on health care prior to a recovery? That wasn't rocket science.
#10
#8 Think you'd need a Daffy-sized sprocket for that Matt ;) Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-08-24 16:28
#9 ...and it would have to be digital.
Posted by: tu3031 2011-08-24 16:33
I'm sure there are a few computer companies that still produce things in the States that could do that. I'd buy one, if it wasn't too expensive. Can you imagine 50,000 TEA Party members on the Mall with those, each flashing brightly as they updated? The Repuglycon candidate wouldn't even have to campaign.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/24/2011 22:12 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Maybe some enterprising entrepreneur will take up that idea, OP.
I'd buy one. :-D
Posted by: Barbara ||
08/24/2011 22:21 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Damn. I better call the patent office or I'll end up like the Smiley Face guy...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Is it too early to say that Barack Obama has lost Florida? Not according to a new survey from Magellan Strategies, which finds the incumbent sharply under water in all key election categories. His job approval and re-elect numbers are an identical 37/57, while his "image rating" -- favorability -- is almost as bad:
Harry Truman famously said, "The buck stops here." Ronald Reagan told the nation during the Iran-Contra scandal, "I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration." When Barack Obama's economic policies failed and his approval ratings plummeted, he followed the precedents of his predecessors and manfully admitted that ... it's all Congress' fault:
