Idea from The Friendly Atheist.

The Public Religion Research Institute has released their new 37 page study “The 2011 American Values Survey:  The Mormon Question, Economic Inequality and the 2012 Presidential Campaign” … Whew….

There is an amazing amount of information in the full report.  The one piece of data that has made the news is that 42% of all voters have discomfort with voting for a Mormon as president.  For this blog the more important point is that 64% would have discomfort voting for a Muslim and 67% would have discomfort voting for an Atheist.

Not much of a shock over all.  The one thing that did stand out to me is that Democrats appear to have a harder time voting for an Atheist then a Muslim.  We are still the most feared group and we have a long way to go.

The second topic I want to cover is wealth distribution.  It appears that 60% of all Americans and 78% of Democrats think that we would be better off if wealth distribution was more equal.

I would have to agree that our society and our economy would be stronger if wealth was a little more equal.  I am not suggesting that we go and take all of the money from the rich but a slight increase in the top federal income tier would be helpful.

The survey also tells us that 70% of all Americans would support what has been called the “Buffett Rule”.  This rule would create a slight increase in the tax rate for people who earn more than $1 Million in a year.  If you take out people who list FOX as their most trusted news source around 80% of people support the idea.  Generally, anyone that thinks that FOX is a trusted news source is not likely to vote for any democrat regardless of the ideas presented.

Sounds like some good ideas to me – what do you think?

The embed code was wrong and I fixed it – whoo hooo.  I can be taught!

August 4th, 2011
If we as Americans want to get to a balanced budget we must take our military out or some foreign countries, cut waste in all areas, change our entire medical system and raise taxes. How hard can that be?

I will never make $1,000,000 but, I’m doing OK.  I have a nice job, a nice house and my cars are paid off.

I agree with the opinions expressed by Patriotic Millionaires.  If you really are concerned about the national debt…why take solutions off the table.  I’m sure there are things we can spend less on, war is a good example.  However, why throw out the idea of bringing in more money.  Here is a video from Patriotic Millionaires.

My favorite line… “Rich people are not the cause of a robust economy they’re the result of a robust economy.” (Ron Garret)

Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000

Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%

During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%

In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%

In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%

Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%

Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office

44% of Congress people are millionaires. The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent

Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years

Via CNN.

The best part is near the end.

“We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives, because, clearly, the higher the price of oil goes, the more they have incentives to go and find alternatives,”

Like any commodity it comes down to supply and demand.  We will never run out of oil but, It could get very expensive.  The question is do we want to find alternatives only after are backs are against the wall or should we plan ahead and transition to alternate fuel on our own schedule?

Post from Shawn.

I want to revisit a topic that came up again on Friday: unemployment numbers. These are usually reported on a weekly and monthly basis by the Labor Department.  What you see on the news is already digested by an editor and a little more in-depth than that face-value and that’s what I want to talk about. 

The unemployment rate is determined by taking the percentage of those unemployed and dividing that by the total available workforce. Pretty simple enough. The key part is what that workforce number is. It’s not going to be everyone in the country and so a few numbers are taken out. The obvious ones are those unable to work: infants, children, disabled, etc. Then the number is shrunk more by taking out those that are not actively looking for work. This can be because of someone going back to school, retiring at an early age, or worse, being too discouraged by the job market to search for jobs.
This is why Friday’s drop in the unemployment rate was actually a negative indicator. While the economy added jobs in December, it didn’t add enough to keep up with the growth in the labor market. Due to population increase, the economy needs to add ~200k jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate steady; Friday’s report of 103k new jobs should have increased the rate. The loss of 260k workers from the labor force caused it to drop instead. Since the recession began, total involvement in the labor force is about 4 million workers short of where it should be, and is, in large part, due to workers getting discouraged and stopping the search for work. Economists sometimes consider this a worse scenario than high unemployment as discouragement has shown to have longer lasting effects on the economy when hiring does pick up. This has been shown every recession and even studied by psychologists for the Great Depression. Total involvement is also a factor in things like Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security as it is these workers supporting the entitlement programs.
It’s also important to note that unemployment numbers come from different sources. The jobs report is from employers while the unemployment number is from a household survey which is how they determine when workers become discouraged. This can cause a discrepancy and a lag between numbers. Additionally, the Labor Dept. tries to normalize the numbers based on the season and sector. For example, lots of stores added temp jobs for the holiday season so the numbers must be compared to previous years. Also the numbers typically reflect non-farm labor as that is largely seasonal and would have large swings.
The point of this article (thank you to www.cnnfn.com for some of the numbers), is to show that there is more interplay in the numbers than just a simple up and down numbers game and they aren’t what they seem. Of course, this information itself is only skin deep and I would encourage questions and more investigation on your own.

NOTE:  This post is part of an ongoing education series.  This information is for educational purposes only.  This information does not constitute investment advice.  No rational person would make investment decisions based on a blog post.  Please consult with your financial advisor before taking any action.  If you think it is OK to make investment decisions based on a blog post, then for the love of the FSM – Stop reading my blog.

For the past several months we have had mixed but slightly favorable news from jobs to home sales.  Now I have seen two things that make it clear that the economy is getting stronger.  The first is retail sales.

Retail sales rose for a fourth straight month in October, the government reported Monday, signaling that consumers are keeping their wallets open as the holiday shopping period approaches.  Total retail sales increased 1.2% from the previous month to $373.1 billion, compared with September’s upwardly revised 0.7% advance, the Commerce Department said. 

That’s really good news because consumer spending is two thirds of the US economy.  The other thing that I saw was a huge crowd in the mall.  I may not be the best judge because I usually avoid the mall – it gives me a rash.  However, last weekend I went to our local mall and it was packed.  We had to wait in line at every store and every person looked like they were carrying bags of stuff.  I say it’s a good sign of consumer confidence. 

From the LA times.

California welfare recipients will no longer be able to use their state-issued debit cards at medical marijuana shops, psychics, massage parlors and many other businesses whose services have been deemed “inconsistent” with the goals of the program.

Monday’s letter announced that the cards, which access cash meant to help families pay rent and clothe their children, also will no longer work at bail bond establishments, bingo halls, cruise ships, gun shops, bars, racetracks, smoking shops and tattoo parlors.

This shows staggering stupidity from the state of California.  These cards are for people on hard time and should only be used for food or other basic needs.  I can’t feed my kids but I can buy a tattoo or see a psychic.  Are the nuts?  I say if they use the card to pay a psychic then they should forfeit $100 from their account and get a message that says they will have a bad day.  This way the state can get back some of the money that was not needed by the user.

Last month, Schwarzenegger ordered casinos outside California removed from the network after The Times reported more than $69 million in welfare benefits had been accessed from machines outside the state since 2007 – including nearly $12 million in Las Vegas.

“…casinos outside of California…”  Why not all casinos.  You should not be able to party with state money.  The cards should not work outside of the state at all.

About $1.5 million had been spent or withdrawn in Florida, state records show. More than $16,000 had been accessed on cruise ships, including several that sail primarily from Miami.

If you can pay for a trip to Florida – you don’t need a welfare card.  If the card is used out of state, the account should be suspended and an investigation started.

Found this story about the shrinking middle class.  The author based it on 22 statistics that prove it.  As a skeptic I decided to look into the numbers.  If you want to explode your head, you can read all of the unsupported opinions in the comment section of the original story.  I won’t review all 22 statistics.  It would take too long and you would not finish this post.  So let’s take a look at a few of them and see what we get.

Proof #1 - “83% of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.”

This is the first “Proof” of the rich getting richer.  This table ends in 2001 and does not reflect any of the effects of the last 9 years.  So it is a stretch to use this data to support a claim about the rich getting richer in 2010.  The red box shows that the top 1% has 83% of the wealth.  In 1962 the top 1% had 94% of the wealth.  Hey!  Wait!  This table supports a position that is in direct conflict of the author.  Well that is awkward!

Proof #2 “66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.”

Well, that does seem a little unbalanced.  Again this is during the boom years.  I don’t have any info for the time before and after this period.

Proof #3 “36% of Americans say that they don’t contribute anything to retirement savings.”

There is nothing in this stat that says if this number is higher or lower than in the past.  Also, it does not talk about income levels and cannot be used to support the point of the story.  When I looked at the source of this “proof“, it said

Some 21 percent of all respondents said they have reduced their 401(k) contributions or personal savings in the last six months in order to get by, while 23 percent of the $100,000-and-over group said they had done so.

This shows that times are tough but may suggest that the higher incomes (over $100,000) were actually saving less.  Not a big difference but this does not support the conclusion that the middle class is shrinking.

I don’t know if the middle class is shrinking or not but based on the samples I took from this article the author has failed to support his position.