There are many things to look at when considering the future of the country. There are of course the job loss numbers, which are counted in the most ridiculous manor, based on those who are still collecting unemployment.

Then there is the debt to income ratio. If the U.S. Were trying to make a car loan, it would be turned down. If not for the amount owed currently, the amount being borrowed on a daily basis.

The outcome is NOT as sweet as some would have you believe.

WASHINGTON – A new congressional report released Friday says the United States' long-term fiscal woes are even worse than predicted by President Barack Obama's grim budget submission last month.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration.

The agency says its future-year predictions of tax revenues are more pessimistic than the administration's. That's because CBO projects slightly slower economic growth than the White House.

The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse since the recession that started at the end of 2007, never dipping below 4 percent of the size of the economy over the next decade. Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living.

Yeah that's my favorite part too, “crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living.”

If private investment is crowded out, who is going to invest? I'll give you a hint GOVERNMENT! But the government doesn't really invest it just spends tax payer money, an action which by virtue weakens the economy.

Here is an interesting view of what's going on.

Obama's tax-cutting agenda is by far the biggest contributor to those budget gaps, the CBO said. As part of his campaign pledge to protect families making less than $250,000 a year from new taxes, the president is proposing to prevent the alternative minimum tax from expanding to ensnare millions of additional taxpayers. He also wants to make permanent a series of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

"Over the next 10 years, those policies would reduce revenues and boost outlays for refundable tax credits by a total of $3.0 trillion," wrote Douglas W. Elmendorf, the CBO director. Combined with interest payments on that shortfall, the tax cuts account for the entire increase in deficits that would result from Obama's proposals.

While this may be true to some extent, I don't think that tax cuts are the root of the problem. In a normal economic environment tax cuts would result in higher revenue for the governemnt not less. Private investment results in wealth and job creation. The problem now is that the economic environment has been so tampered with that investment is stagnant. People (and companies) are holding on to their money, because they don't know what giant piece of legislation is coming next. Remember the part about "crowd out private investment," the government can't produce wealth, it can only confiscate it, and distribute it. Of course the redistribution is not done in a market friendly way. Take GM for example. The market dictated the collapse of GM, but the government "invested" in the failing company because it was "too big to fail." I wonder how long this mentality can continue without ECONOMIC GROWTH / WEALTH CREATION?

I blame the unsustainable deficits, and the fact that Obama administration has put it's hands in the economy to the point where private investment is too risky! If the economy / wealth were still growing deficit reduction wouldn't be such an issue.

Jobless numbers are also an indicator that investment is stagnant.

Friday's better-than-expected jobs report, while cheering stock investors, hasn't taken the threat of a double-dip recession off the table.

What's Next?

Even as the jobless rate held steady at 9.7 percent and the 36,000 workers laid off in February was much less than expected, economists and investment analysts said it's still too early to discount the economy's chances of revisiting recession.

"Eight months into the much-touted recovery, the economy should be adding jobs not just losing jobs at a slower pace," University of Maryland economist Peter Morici wrote in an analysis.

"No study of economic history could yield a conclusion other than that the US economy (walks) along the precipice of a double dip recession."

Wow finaly an economist who is not under "Hopenosis"! This has been my point all along. When are there going to be job increases. Who judges success based on a reduction of negative circumstances? Either someone who is trying to be optimistic, or someone who is lying.

There were two ways to view the Friday jobs report, and Wall Street clearly chose the more optimistic.

Uncertainty over the impact of this season's brutal weather pattern had caused wide disparities in projections, with most economists around the 75,000 mark but some whisper projections as high as 200,000.

Yeah it was the weather... Yeah...

"If the best the US labor market can do is printing modestly negative headline payroll reports at this stage of the cycle, one has to wonder how these numbers will look going forward barring either an acceleration in private final demand or a collapse in productivity growth," wrote Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg in his daily note.

Indeed!

Economist Michael Pento, of Delta Global Advisers in Parsippany, N.J., said the better-than-expected jobs number was boosted primarily by the 15,000 Census workers hired and does nothing to mask what he considers the near-certainty that the second half of the year will see another leg down for the economy.

"We still haven't created any jobs. They can't get any loans, their incomes are down and they face much higher taxes in 2011 and higher interest rates," Pento said in an interview. "I don't know why anybody would think anything else. If I'm wrong I'll fall down and build a shrine to John Maynard Keynes."

You don't have to be an economist to see what is happening. Investment anywhere is a bad idea right now (unless the possibility of a large loss is not a worry).

Let's put this together in very simple manor. Economic uncertainty is one thing, but with the course of the economy is dictated by the government, how is anyone supposed to know where to invest? At least when normal market forces were in control there was some predictability, now the economy hangs on just a few people's decisions. In short; until the government gets out of the way we are not going to recover. Or is that the plan?

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. -- Margaret Thatcher.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

There are few interesting things happening here. There is a congressman from Michigan, Bart Stupak, who says that he won't vote for the health care bill if the abortion measure is NOT removed. In other words Stupak is Pro-Life.

The current democrat plan (which of course is NOT reported in the news) is for the HOUSE to pass the SENATE version of the health care bill, which contains legislation that will provide government funding for abortions. ...In comes Bart Stupak.

In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Stupak said he wants to see health care reform pass, but that some of the provisions in the Senate bill are unacceptable.

"The bill that they are using as the vehicle is the Senate bill. If you go to page 2069 through page 2078, you would find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions ... We're not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language in there."

The House narrowly passed its version of health care reform only after Stupak's abortion language was adopted.

When asked if he was willing to live with the consequences of bringing down the bill, Stupak said, "Yes, we're prepared to take responsibility. I mean, I've been catching it ever since last fall. I mean let's face it, I want to see health care. But we're not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

Stupak is part of a larger coalition of House Democrats that favor modifying the Senate bill. When the House voted for health care reform, 64 Democrats voted for the Stupak amendment in a separate vote.

Here is the problem for the democrats pushing this bill. Budget Reconciliation is "said" to be an option. Right now democrats are being told that the senate can take the abortion provisions out of the bill (using budget reconciliation). The problem is that budget reconciliation has specific rules which force reconciliation provisions to budget issues ONLY. This means that the senate will most likely NOT be able to change the abortion provisions, because the provisions which provide the funding for abortions are not "directly" related to the overall cost of the bill. This means that any promises made by the senate about removal of the abortion provisions are just talk.

So where does this leave the process? It hopefully leaves it with a bill that doesn't move out of the house.

Remember the process! If there were enough votes in the house to pass the senate version of the bill this would be over, and the bill would be on its way to Obama's desk. The fact that budget reconciliation is even being floated in the senate is proof that there are not enough democratic votes in the house to pass the bill!

I highly doubt that this is the kind of change anyone can believe in. It's the kind of change that requires the most unethical means to attempt its goals (the purchasing of votes, Nebraska, Louisiana, Judge appointments). Like Robert Gibbs (White House press secretary) said earlier today, "Whatever it takes to get health care done."

This is a crucial point in history. I hope it will go down with this bill being scrapped completely, never to return again.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The democrats have painted the republicans as the "party of no." I find this to be interesting though, because this street is most certainly not one-way.

Fox Coverage.

Obama strongly signaled at Thursday's summit that Democrats will move forward on a health care overhaul with or without Republicans. At stake are Democrats' political fortunes and the fate of Obama's agenda.

Delivering his closing argument at a 7-1/2-hour televised policy marathon Thursday, Obama told Republicans he welcomes their ideas -- even ones Democrats don't like -- but they must fit into his framework for a broad health care remake that would cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

That's the deal.

It's a gamble for Obama and his party, and it's far from certain that Democratic congressional leaders can rally their members to muscle a bill through on their own. At stake are Democrats' political fortunes in the midterm elections and the fate of Obama's domestic agenda pitted against emboldened Republicans.

"The truth of the matter is that politically speaking, there may not be any reason for Republicans to want to do anything," Obama said, summing up. "I don't need a poll to know that most Republican voters are opposed to this bill and might be opposed to the kind of compromise we could craft."

Senate Minority Leader McConnell, House Minority Leader Boehner, Sen. McCain, and Senate Minority Whip Kyl arrive at the Blair House.

"And if we can't," he added, "I think we've got to go ahead and some make decisions, and then that's what elections are for."

To the nearly 40 lawmakers in the room with him, the message was unmistakable.

"Frankly, I was discouraged by the outcome," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "I do not believe there will be any Republican support for this 2,700-page bill."

Democratic leaders -- who preside over majorities in both chambers-- were having none of that.

"It's time to do something, and we're going to do it," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Obama said Americans want a decision on health care, and most think "a majority vote makes sense."

Yet a USA Today/Gallup survey released Thursday found Americans tilt 49-42 percent against Congress passing a health care bill similar to the ones proposed by Obama and Democrats in the House and Senate. Opposition was even stronger to the idea of Senate Democrats using the special budget rules [budget reconciliation], with 52 percent opposed and 39 percent in favor.

What kind of leader says, "It's time to do something, and we're going to do it"? Harry Reid obviously doesn't know what's in the bill, or he would respond with something coherent, not just 3rd grade babble.

It would seem that the American people are not behind this democrat effort (as they have never really been). This is the most important point of all. As time went on and people learned more about the legislation its popularity decreased. Why? Because none of these bills have been, in any way, what they have been sold as. People are starting to wake up and look around.

CNN Coverage.

Although their public stance will be to let the dust from the summit settle, Democrats are actively looking into using the parliamentary shortcut known as reconciliation to get a health care bill to the president's desk, the sources said.

They are specifically exploring two issues: The ins and outs of how the complicated process could work, and whether the votes are there in the Senate and House to execute this strategy.

On the process, Democratic aides said they are consulting with the parliamentarians in the House and the Senate on what is possible. The general idea is for the House to pass the health bill that already has been approved by the Senate, and for a package of changes that mirror the president's plan to be passed through both chambers under reconciliation rules.

Under those rules, only 51 votes would be needed to advance the bill out of the Senate instead of the 60 needed under normal procedures.

The one Republican who voted for the House bill, Rep Joseph Cao, R-Louisiana, already says he'll be a "no" next time. There may also be some vulnerable Democrats facing tough races this year who decide to change their yes vote to no.

But the biggest obstacle to passing the Senate's health bill in the House and getting it to the president's desk may be abortion.

By some estimates, close to a dozen anti-abortion Democrats could vote against the Senate version of the bill because they say it's not strict enough in making sure taxpayer dollars are not spent on abortion procedures.

The abortion issue should be a no-brainer. Why in the world would you want government funded abortions? China has long been criticized for this (human rights violations, population control) but for some reason, now it's o.k. for us to do it?

I think the American people need to focus their efforts on repealing this legislation, because I'm confident that the democrats are going to pass this. They are not afraid to go down with the ship. To me this was evident when they picked Barack Obama as their presidential nominee.

Now it will be up to "The Party of No" to have the guts to repeal this garbage once it is pushed through. The republicans could; in fact, represent the country of NO! Because it will be once this is pushed through.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

There was quite a bit of scrutiny directed toward the U.S. Census Super Bowl commercial. I didn't really pay much attention to it until now. I actually watched to commercial.

I can't believe that the government spent 2.5 million dollars on this commercial.

No this is NOT a joke, that was really the 2.5 million dollar commercial for the census.

Let's take a closer look at what's really going on.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Big worries for the nation's first high-tech census should have been obvious when the door-to-door headcounters couldn't figure out their fancy new handheld computers.

Now, officials say, technology problems could add as much as $2 billion to the cost of the 2010 census and jeopardize the accuracy of the nation's most important survey.

A congressional agency says the census is at "high risk" of producing an expensive yet unreliable count, and lawmakers are planning hearings.

Census officials are considering a return to using paper and pencil to count every man, woman and child in the nation.

This was to be the first truly high-tech count in the nation's history, with census-takers using handheld computers to track and tally the millions of Americans who do not return the census forms mailed out by the government. The Census Bureau plans to hire and train nearly 600,000 temporary workers to help.

But interviews, congressional testimony and government reports describe an agency that was unprepared to manage a $600 million contract for the handheld computers that will be vital. Census officials are being blamed for a poor job spelling out technical requirements to the contractor, Florida-based Harris Corp.

The computers proved too complex for some temporary workers who tried to use them in a test last year in North Carolina. Also, the computers were not initially programmed to transmit the large amounts of data necessary.

At more than $11 billion, the initial cost of the 2010 census was already the most expensive ever. Officials now are scrambling to hold down costs while trying to ensure the count produces reliable population numbers — figures that will be used to apportion seats in Congress and divvy up more than $300 billion a year in federal and state funding.

"What we're facing is a statistical Katrina on the part of the administration," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.

"Will they leave this mess for the next administration?" asked Maloney, a member of the House committee that oversees the census.

It would appear that the problem is not with the general public, but with the Census Bureau itself.

I have just a few things to say here.

- Why in the world is the government spending 2.5 million dollars on a commercial that is completely pointless? Honestly, did you learn anything from that commercial?

- How is the commercial going to help in facilitate the census?

- Why not spend 2.5 million dollars training the temporary workers hired to take the census? Then they can work the 646 million dollars worth of computers purchased to tabulate the census!

It gets even better though, check it out!

Over the next few months, it will be hard to escape hearing about the 2010 Census.

The Census Bureau unveiled a $133 million advertising campaign Thursday that urges people to mail back the questionnaires that will be sent out in mid-March. The ads, in 28 languages, aim to save taxpayers' money by reducing the need for temporary workers to survey people who don't return their forms.

Some ads will be featured on high-viewership television shows such as the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday and the Super Bowl in early February. But more than half of the budget has been set aside for media outlets that target groups undercounted in previous censuses, including African Americans, Hispanics and others that have many recent immigrants who may not speak English.

"We're proud of this," Census Bureau Director Robert M. Groves said of the campaign's multicultural focus.

The paid advertising is part of a $340 million campaign to promote the once-a-decade count. The money will also pay for census material for schoolchildren, a traveling road show of census buses at parades and festivals around the country and partnerships with groups that can get distribute give-away trinkets and placards.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?! A traveling road show of census buses at parades and festivals around the country? Give-away trinkets and placards? Get a load of some of the languages mentioned.

Hundreds of ads have been drafted in a United Nations of languages, including Tagalog, Yiddish, Hmong, Khmer, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and two dialects of Chinese.

The emphasis in the message varies with the audience. Several ads geared toward Spanish speakers, for instance, mention that the census is confidential and that the bureau cannot divulge their immigration status.

Since when does the Constitution say that people who are NOT legal citizens are to receive congressional representation? If immigration status is not an issue, why not just count the entire Northern Hemisphere, or the world?

Could this make any less sense?

Tip: Steal the identity of an illegal alien, never pay taxes again!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Today I am running the site from my guest bedroom computer. My wife purchased Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit as a Valentine's Day gift. So, I'm nuking my main desktop computer (which is also my VM host) it was a Vista Ultimate machine.

I might just be a real pioneer here! I'm hosting a website over a wireless connection!

Wish me luck...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.