Hey Progressives, guess who’s benefitting from your green spending? Red states. Biden’s Climate law has had a reverse effect on blue states. They’re not getting the green energy benefits like they had hoped. They’re going to the red states. And why’s that?
My guess is that the cost to build wind, solar shields, and electric battery plants are going to red states. Roughly two-thirds of the major projects are in districts whose Republican lawmakers opposed the Inflation Reduction Act, according to a POLITICO analysis of major green energy manufacturing announcements made since the bill’s enactment.
It’s a start. Dell to Phase Out All Computer Chips Produced in China. No they’re not coming to the USA, but they’re pulling out of China by 2024. So it’s a start. As you know, China is the Progressives favorite, replacing Russia. We see that HP has also announced that they will be leaving China.
Nikkei Asia reports that Dell has told its suppliers to significantly reduce the number of components in its products that are “made in China” in an effort to diversify its supply chain as concerns over tensions between the US and China grow in the tech community. According to sources, the company has also informed its suppliers that it aims to stop using chips made in China by 2024. Dell reportedly plans to manufacture all chips used in its products in plants outside of China by 2024.
Apple reportedly plans to start making its MacBook notebooks in Vietnam by mid-2023, which means the company will have some alternative non-China production bases for all of its major product lines.
One of the white house clowns put out a list of Joey boys accomplishments the past two years. But I have to say I’m a bit puzzled. For some reason a complete list wasn’t posted. So I thought that I will include just a few of the items that somehow got left off. How these items were not on this impressive list amazes me.
Airplane travel is 46% higher this year over last year. And last year was 38% higher than the year before. How about gasoline. Still on average $1.50 a gallon higher than 2020. And how can we forget inflation?
Inflation at 40 year high, and the administration brags how they got it under control at 8%. I’m sure that put you at ease. Having Turkey tomorrow? Only 20% higher than last year. Last year 15% higher than the year before. And those 4 or 5 million undocumented?
Thanks to Joe you can invite one of the millions of undocumented folks over for Thanksgiving. Maybe they can show you their new phone the government gave them for free. And Joe’s great record on Crime.
Mass shootings are up this year and last year up over the year before. A record to truly be proud of. So in closing it looks like the only thing that Joe can claim he brought down was wages and spendable income after you figure in inflation. Walk and be proud Joe.
We saw the sucking sound of Jobs start under the second Bush. Gave Tax credits to American companies that created jobs. Only problem was that the companies created them overseas and off shore.
Obama really picked up on that. The job loss was huge. Progressives jumped on Trump when GM announced the final closing of several plants including one in my back yard. But under my Congressman Tim Ryan the area lost 25,000 manufacturing jobs during his tenure.
EmploymentEffects A large body of literature addresses the impact of trade and trade policy shocks on levels of employment across geographic regions, industries, and workers. Much of this literature has documented that increased U.S. imports from low–wage economies reduce domestic employment inimport–competing industries. Research broadly finds that U.S. workers in import–competing industries experienced significantly higher rates of unemployment or underemployment, transition to different industries or occupations, or exit from the labor force.The effects of exports on employmentremainslargely underresearched,butexisting studiessuggest that exporting may positively impact employment outcomes.
•Employment effects across different education and skill levels: Existing research finds evidence that trade shocks have led to different employment outcomes for workers acrosseducation and skill levels. The literature is clear that increased offshoring and import competition from low– wage economies reduced employment for manufacturing workers commonly defined as low–skill. However, other dimensions, including effects of exports or services trade, remain relatively underresearched, with only a small number of studies.
•Employment effects by gender: Literature on the impact of trade on theemploymentandlabor force participation of men and women in the United States links trade exposure to the gender composition of the labor force in different industries, showing that men are more likely to work in import–competing firms that tend to contract with increased import competition. The literature shows inconclusive effects of trade liberalization on labor force participation by gender.
•Employment effects by race/ethnicity: Literature on the impact of trade on employment and labor force outcomes by race or ethnicity is limited and predominantly focuses on measuring impacts of imports on Black and Hispanic workers, but not other racial minority groups. The limited literature shows that, in the face of trade shocks, Black and other Nonwhite workers fare worse than their White counterparts.
Wage Effects A substantial body of research has documented the effects of various trade policy shocks on wages and income across different groups of workers. Researchers have found that wage andincome vary significantly depending on workers’ exposure to trade shocks, whether workers change occupations or industries in response to a shock, as well as worker characteristics such as educational attainment, gender, or race. •Wage effects across different education and skill levels: Several studies find that import competition–induced transitions between industries and occupations significantly reduce earnings for workers and these adverse wage effects are especially pronounced for non–college– educatedworkers or those previously employed in manufacturing jobs. Conversely, college– educated workers and non–production manufacturing workers such as managers experience lower or no wage or income loss following trade–induced employment transitions. •Wage effects by gender: Literature on the impact of trade on wages by gender suggests that the gender wage gap declines in the presence of import competition. This result is generally not due
Executive Summary United States International Trade Commission |19 to increases in wages of women but rather declines in wages of men who switch out of import– competing sectors. •Wage effects by race/ethnicity: Literature on the impact of trade on wages by race or ethnicity is limited and predominantly focused on measuring the impact of imports on Black and Hispanic workers, but not other minority groups. The limited literature suggests that import competition had a large and disproportionately negative effect on wages of minority
So what happens when you go after Conservatives who are some of your biggest customers? Huge losses, layoffs, and major cutbacks. They thought they would go after one of the leading Presidential candidates and not suffer for it?
The moves come after Disney reported disappointing quarterly results. Shares of the company fell sharply Wednesday, hitting a new 52-week low, before rebounding later in the week.
McCarthy said during Disney’s earnings call Tuesday that the company was looking for ways to trim costs.
“We are actively evaluating our cost base currently, and we’re looking for meaningful efficiencies,” she said. “Some of those are going to provide some near-term savings, and others are going to drive longer-term structural benefits.”
Disney’s streaming services lost $1.47 billion last quarter, more than double the unit’s loss from a year prior. McCarthy said losses will improve in 2023, and Chapek has promised streaming will become profitable by the end of 2024.
Other large media and entertainment companies, including Warner Bros. Discovery and Netflix, have cut jobs this year as valuations have slumped. Disney hasn’t announced any plans to eliminate jobs.
It does my heart good to see that companies worldwide are expanding production of oil and gas. We have this from our friends at Breitbart.
A German non-governmental organization (NGO) called Urgewald, which monitors carbon emissions, presented a report at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt that said nearly all of the oil and gas companies in the world are planning significant expansions over the next few years, in a dramatic rebuttal of the climate change movement’s demand for zero emissions.
“The outcome of our calculations is truly frightening: oil and gas companies’ short-term expansion plans are not in line with the net zero emissions course put forward by the IEA (International Energy Agency),” said Urgenwald’s Fiona Hauke.
Their policies are aligned to fight climate change — not lowering your prices at the pump
Earlier this week, President Biden just couldn’t resist exposing either his ignorance about energy, his hostility to affordable energy, or both.
He threatened oil companies with a tax on their profits. Such a tax would, of course, be paid for by consumers and — rather than increase production and reduce prices, like Mr. Biden says he wants — would do the exact opposite and reduce production and increase prices of gasoline and other oil products. Here’s a news flash: The president and his team don’t care.
The call for a tax on profits is the just like the proposed suspension of the federal gas tax, the very real emptying of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or the limits on exports that are currently being considered. All of these actions — and the associated tiresome rhetoric — are all intended to convince the voters that Team Biden really cares about high gasoline prices.
They don’t. They are perfectly content to have you pay high gas prices. There’s no way any of their fantasies about climate change can happen without high energy prices, specifically high oil and natural gas prices.
They just don’t want you to blame them for those prices. So, naturally, they are looking around for someone else to blame. It is no surprise that they’ve landed on oil companies.
Unfortunately for them, oil companies don’t set the price of oil. Neither does any one particular producer or consumer. The price is set in a global market with lots of buyers and lots of sellers who agree on a price and then exchange cash for oil. This sort of thing happens in all kinds of markets all over the planet each day.
Prices of oil are going up because demand is high relative to supply. Despite the lie the president tells you, this is not because of the war in Ukraine. That conflict has not prevented any Russian oil from coming to the global market.
The imbalance between demand and supply is primarily because of under investment in oil fields over the last decade. For example, Josh Young, the chief investment officer at Bison Energy, notes that investment in U.S. oil fields peaked in 2012 at about $16.5 billion dollars and dropped as low as $3.9 billion in 2021.
Last summer, the International Energy Agency concluded: “Our estimates for 2022 suggest that today’s aggregate fossil fuel investment is broadly aligned with the near-term needs of a scenario in which countries hit their climate pledges.”
In other words, the IEA acknowledges the reduced investment in oil and gas projects and considers it a good thing because that lack of investment will ultimately mean less oil and natural gas and, consequently, help countries meet their climate pledges. The IEA — like Team Biden — is mostly unconcerned about high energy prices.
While they are not responsible for global markets, Team Biden is responsible for the relentless downward pressure on American production of oil. Their emphasis on environmental, social, and governance-based investing means that investors are steered away from investments in oil and natural gas. The now routine propaganda — mostly from the government — about the mythology of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and an energy “transition” that has destroyed Europe’s energy system and is chewing through its economy further drives under investment in oil and natural gas.
Is there a different answer?
Well, the Committee to Unleash Prosperity has estimated that American oil production would be about 30% higher (or about 3 million barrels a day more) if Team Biden had just kept President Donald Trump’s policies in place.
That would be too easy. Team Biden has no intention of addressing the underlying problem of national and global under investment in oil and gas production and refineries over the last few years. To the contrary, their actions — weaponizing financial regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission against affordable energy, not allowing production on federal lands, even something as trivial as canceling the Keystone pipeline — indicate that they intend to make the problem worse.
If he were serious about the problem, Mr. Biden — or whoever is president nowadays — would clearly and directly reject notions of net zero, let go of the fantasy of banning gasoline-powered cars, and cease the jihad against oil and gas being waged by its own financial regulators.
The chances of all that happening are zero.
Mr. Biden and his crew want high gas prices. Those prices serve their purposes. All of the hand-waving and hand-wringing about oil companies and their profits, and all of the show associated with draining pretty much all of our strategic reserves, is a dangerous charade.
When CNN Fact checks Xiden and calls BS, you KNOW he’s in trouble.
President Joe Biden has been back on the campaign trail, traveling in October and early November to deliver his pitch for electing Democrats in the midterm elections on Tuesday.
Biden’s pitch has included claims that are false, misleading or lacking important context. (As always, we take no position on the accuracy of his subjective arguments.) Here is a fact-check look at nine of his recent statements.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment for this article.
Social Security, part 1
Biden said at a Democratic fundraiser in Pennsylvania last week: “On our watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are going to get the biggest increase in their Social Security checks they’ve gotten.” He has also touted the 2023 increase in Social Security payments at other recent events.
The White House deleted a Tuesday tweet that delivered an especially triumphant version of Biden’s boast, and press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre acknowledged Wednesday that the tweet was lacking “context.”
That now-deleted Tuesday tweet reads: “Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership.”
Biden said at a Democratic rally in Florida on Tuesday: “And on my watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are getting an increase in their Social Security checks.”
The claim that the 2023 increase to Social Security payments is the first in 10 years is false. In reality, there has been a cost-of-living increase every year from 2017 onward. There was also an increase every year from 2012 through 2015 before the payment level was kept flat in 2016 because of a lack of inflation.
The context around this Biden remark in Florida suggests he might have botched his repeat campaign line about Social Security payments increasing at the same time asMedicare premiums are declining.
Regardless of his intentions, though, he was wrong.
A new corporate tax
Biden repeatedly suggested in speeches in October and early November that a new law he signed in August, the Inflation Reduction Act, will stop the practice of successful corporations paying no federal corporate income tax. Biden made the claim explicitly in a tweet last week: “Let me give you the facts. In 2020, 55 corporations made $40 billion. And they paid zero in federal taxes. My Inflation Reduction Act puts an end to this.”
But “puts an end to this” is an exaggeration. The Inflation Reduction Act will reduce the number of companies on the list of non-payers, but the law will not eliminate the list entirely.
That’s because the law’s new 15% alternative corporate minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. (There are lots of nuances; you can read more specifics here.) According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the think tank that in 2021 published the list of 55 large and profitable companies that avoided paying any federal income tax in their previous fiscal year, only 14 of these 55 companies reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion in that year.
In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect in 2023. The exact number is not yet known.
Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said in a Thursday email that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”
The debt and the deficit
Biden said at the Tuesday rally in Florida: “Look, you know, you can hear it from Republicans, ‘My God, that big-spending Democrat Biden. Man, he’s taken us in debt.’ Well, guess what? I reduced the federal deficit this year by $1 trillion $400 billion. One trillion 400 billion dollars. The most in all American history. No one has ever reduced the debt that much. We cut the federal debt in half.”
Second, it’s highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for even the reduction in the deficit. Biden doesn’t mention that the primary reason the deficit plummeted in fiscal years 2021 and 2022 was that it had skyrocketed to a record high in 2020 because of emergency pandemic relief spending. It then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned.
“On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.”
Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, says the administration’s own actions have significantly worsened the deficit picture. (David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds, told Egan that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the economic recovery that has boosted tax revenues.)
The unemployment rate
Biden said at the Florida rally on Tuesday: “Unemployment is down from 6.5 to 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years.” He said at the New Mexico rally on Thursday: “Unemployment rate is 3.5% – the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”
But Biden didn’t acknowledge that September’s 3.5% unemployment rate was actually a tie for the lowest in 50 years – a tie, specifically, with three months of Trump’s administration, in late 2019 and early 2020. Since Biden uses these campaign speeches to favorably compare his own record to Trump’s record, that omission is significant.
The unemployment rate rose to 3.7% in October; that number was revealed on Friday, after these Biden comments. The rate was 6.4% in January 2021, the month Biden took office.
Biden’s student debt policy
During an on-camera discussion conducted by progressive organization NowThis News and published online in late October, Biden told young activists that they “probably are aware, I just signed a law” on student debt forgiveness that is being challenged by Republicans. He added: “It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two, and it’s in effect.”
Biden’s claims are false.
He created his student debt forgiveness initiative through executive action, not through legislation, so he didn’t sign a law and didn’t get it passed by any margin. Since Republicans opposed to the initiative, including those challenging the initiative in court, have called it unlawful precisely because it wasn’t passed by Congress, the distinction between a law and an executive action is a highly pertinent fact here.
A White House official told CNN that Biden was referring to the Inflation Reduction Act, the law narrowly passed by the Senate in August; the official said the Inflation Reduction Act created “room for other crucial programs” by bringing down the deficit. But Biden certainly did not make it clear that he was talking about anything other than the student debt initiative.
Biden correctly noted on various occasions in October that gas prices have declined substantially since their June 2022 peak – though, as always, it’s important to note that presidents have a limited impact on gas prices. But in an economic speech in New York last week, Biden said, “Today, the most common price of gas in America is $3.39 – down from over $5 when I took office.”
The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day Biden was inaugurated, January 20, 2021, was $2.39 — less than half the price Biden was claiming.
Biden’s claim that the most common gas price when he took office was more than $5 is not even close to accurate. The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day he was inaugurated, January 20, 2021, was $2.39, according to data provided to CNN by Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. In other words, Biden made it sound like gas prices had fallen significantly during his presidency when they had actually increased significantly.
In other recent remarks, Biden has discussed the state of gas prices in relation to the summer peak of more than $5 per gallon, not in relation to when he took office. Regardless, the comment last week was the second this fall in which Biden inaccurately described the price of gas – both times in a way that made it sound more impressive.
Biden has revived a claim that was debunked more than 20 months ago by The Washington Post and then CNN. At least twice in October, he boasted that he traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
“I’ve spent more time with Xi Jinping of China than any world leader has, when I was Vice President all the way through to now. Over 78 hours with him alone. Eight – nine of those hours on the phone and the others in person, traveling 17,000 miles with him around the world, in China and the United States,” he told a Democratic gathering in Oregon in mid-October.
Biden made the number even bigger during a speech on student debt in New Mexico on Thursday, saying, “I traveled 17-, 18,000 miles with him.”
The claim is false. Biden has not traveled anywhere close to 17,000 miles with Xi, though they have indeed spent lots of time together. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted in 2021 that the two men often did not even travel parallel routes to their gatherings, let alone physically travel together. The only apparent way to get Biden’s mileage past 17,000, Kessler found, is to add the length of his flight journeys between Washington and Beijing, during which, obviously, Xi was not with him.
A White House official told CNN in early 2021 that Biden was adding up his “total travel back and forth” for meetings with Xi. But that is very different than traveling “with” Xi as Biden keeps saying, especially in the context of a boast about how well he knows Xi – and Biden has had more than enough time to make his language more precise.
The Trump tax cuts
Biden claimed at the Thursday rally in New Mexico that under Trump, Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut that “affected only the top 1% of the American public.”
Biden correctly said in various October remarks that the Trump tax cut law was particularly beneficial to the wealthy, but he went too far here. It’s not true that the Trump policy “only” affected the top 1%.
The Tax Policy Center think tank found in early 2018 that Trump’s law “will reduce individual income taxes on average for all income groups and in all states.” The think tank estimated that “between 60 and 76 percent of taxpayers in every state will receive a tax cut.”
And in April 2019, tax-preparation company H&R Block said two-thirds of its returning customers had indeed paid less in tax that year than they did the year prior, The New York Times reported in an article headlined “Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut.”
The Tax Policy Center did find in early 2018 that people at the top would get by far the biggest benefits from Trump’s law. Specifically, the think tank found that the top 1% of earners would get an average 3.4% increase in after-tax 2018 income – versus an average 1.6% income increase for people in the middle quintile, an average 1.2% income increase for people in the quintile below that and just an average 0.4% income increase for people in the lowest quintile.
The think tank also found that the top 1% of earners would get more than 20% of the income benefits from the law, a bigger share than the bottom 60% of earners combined.
The distribution could get even more skewed after 2025, when the law’s individual tax cuts will expire if not extended by Congress and the president. If there is no extension – and, therefore, the law’s permanent corporate tax cut remains in place without the individual tax cuts – the Tax Policy Center has estimated that, in 2027, the top 1% will get 83% of the benefits from the law.
But that’s a possibility about the future. Biden claimed, in the past tense, that the law “affected” only the top 1%.
This wasn’t the first time Biden overstated his point about the Trump tax cuts. The Washington Post fact-checked him in 2019, for example, when he claimed “all of it” went to the ultra-rich and corporations.
Apparently the rank-and-file Democrats are realizing the Xiden regime is not doing them any favors, despite their promises.
Here’s a just-released addition that shows how deep in the doo-doo Biden and the Democratic Party are:
America’s corrupt political class — Democrat and Republican — are looking to put the last two years of mask mandates, school closures, mandatory shots, and COVID lockdowns in the rear-view mirror. They don’t want to be voted out of office for destroying your life. That would be called accountability and there’s nothing that America’s ruling-class-pretending-to-be-public-servants dislike more than accountability.
Instead, they want a truce without counting the costs. They want an amnesty without judgment — and certainly without hearings. They want you to grant them toxic forgiveness.
That’s why the ruling class sent out its useful idiots — fourth-rate people like David French and Emily Oster — to see if, you know, the American public was in the mood toforgive them right before the next election. If you are ever asked the name of the very last person on earth to believe that the COVID vaccines work, you can tell them: it was David French.
Hey—sorry you lost your job b/c of the vax that doesn’t work and your grandmother died alone and you couldn’t have a funeral and your brother’s business was needlessly destroyed and your kids have weird heart problems—but let’s just admit we were all wrong and call a truce, eh?
It’s too bad we shut the entire economy down & took on tyrannical powers that have never been used before in this country—looking back, you should have been able to go to church and use public parks while we let people riot in the streets—but it was a confusing time for everyone.
Hey, I’m sorry we scared the hell out of you & lied for years & persecuted & censored anyone who disagreed but there was an election going on & we really wanted to beat Donald Trump so it was important to radically politicize the science even if it destroyed your children’s lives.
OK, yes we said unvaccinated people should die & not get healthcare while never questioning Big Pharma once but we are compassionate people which is why even though we shut down the entire economy we also bankrupted the nation & caused inflation. You’re welcome! Let’s be friends.
Needless to say, our politicians and public health officials really want you to forget that they took America right to the edge of the abyss.
In fact, they have turned America into the Banana Republic of Biden — where your civil rights might exist depending on which judge you get in your state, and what you last posted on your social media accounts.
It’s no surprise that these pleas for amnesty have been published after the midterm polls showed a “red wave” forming. If the polls had gone the other way, Biden’s FBI would probably be wrangling you onto a boxcar right now headed for a FEMA camp — and you know it.
Look at the state of our country. All the negative issues are up. Why is that? Look at Blue state leadership? Look at leadership in red state large cities. What do they all have in common? Democrats in power.