Stock Market Crash Expected In 2008 To Be Worse Than 1929

[Soldier4Christ]

Some more on these companies:

Employers in Florida passing off bad checks on employees is hardly news. It's happened to my sister-in-law, who when she complained to a nursing supervisor, was then threatened with having immigration sicd on her. How very nice, a threat of a lawyer getting involved got the threats stopped. Except the employer tried to pass another bad check off to Leonette. The second time, we checked with the bank before depositing it. What some employers will try doing.

Note- My sister-in-law was hired from the Philippines to work as a nurse at a Miami Beach Nursing home for two years. The corporation who wrote Leonette's checks was based out of Illinois.

I digress from what is happening in Orlando at present. United Cities Corp. in addition to paying employees with bogus checks(They had invalid routing numbers, not insufficient funds), its owner Angel Cruz, printed its own currency. "The United States Private Dollar". We're talking six billion dollars worth of funny money. Taking the words 'screw your employees' to a new level. Don't you just love Florida.

Note- I do admit, anyone taking privately issued money, has to be pretty gullible. That doesn't mean this story isn't amusing. Feel free to disagree.

Linked to- Bright & Early, Bullwinkle, Perri Nelson, The World According to Carl,

The federal government is investigating a Kissimmee company for issuing "worthless checks," which its employees have tried to deposit at area banks.

Several employees of United Cities Corp. said they went to work for the company through its nonprofit partner with the promise of great salary and benefits, including a 30-year contract, new car, health insurance and payment of their debts.

The workers received compensation in the form of checks from United Cities, but those checks were rejected as fraudulent by local banks after the employees deposited them.

"They accused me of fraud," said William Feliciano, who worked as a human-resources director at the nonprofit partner, JC Consultores Laborales. "They expelled me from the bank."

An alert sent last week by Department of the Treasury's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to all national banks and the Federal Reserve said United Cities "has been issuing worthless checks drawn on an unknown entity" by using an invalid routing number.

"These valueless instruments," the alert said, "have been presented for deposit at a number of U.S. banks."

Such alerts warn financial institutions in fraud cases.

"We are telling banks not to cash these things," agency spokesman Kevin Mukri said.

In addition to the checks, Angel Cruz, who owns United Cities, said he intends to issue a new currency -- dubbed "The United States Private Dollar" -- and he has already printed $6 billion worth.

Orlando and Miami officials with the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates counterfeit currency, said a probe of United Cities is under way. U.S. attorney's offices in both cities also are working the case.

"It's currently under investigation," said Jim Glendinning, assistant special agent-in-charge with the Secret Service's Orlando field office.

United Cities and nonprofit officials did not return calls Wednesday for comment on the federal probe, but in previous statements they defended their project.

"This project seeks to strengthen the economy," said Josefina Calderon of Kissimmee, the nonprofit's president.

Employees interviewed by the Sentinel said United Cities recruited more than 30 area Hispanics to provide a range of counseling and clerical services in JC Consultores Laborales. They said they believed in Cruz's plan to launch a new currency that he claimed would rival the U.S. dollar. Cruz said his currency is backed by the assets of a consortium of partners and the future earnings of United Cities' employees. He also touts his plan on his Web site with photos of the currency and a video of the money being manufactured.

"We were able to print over 6 billion dollars of our currency," said Cruz, who blamed banks for blocking his project. "The tellers, the branch managers and some of the agencies are not educated well enough as to know how the Federal Reserve works. . . . We sent information to the president of the United States and every other agency under the sun telling them we were doing this." Already, some of the agency's employees have been burned by their belief in United Cities.

Feliciano, 72, a retired social worker whose duties at the nonprofit include marriage counseling, said he accrued earnings of about $14,000 for 21/2 months' work.

Bank of America froze, and later closed, Feliciano's account after he deposited a paycheck from United Cities. He had to borrow to pay the mortgage on his Kissimmee condo.

Washington Mutual also has rejected checks and frozen accounts, because it considers the checks "fraudulent," spokeswoman Nova Barnett said.

Although there are legal "local currencies" in a few places throughout the U.S., they are usually accepted only by a network of merchants willing to take them -- such as Walt Disney World issuing and taking in "Disney Dollars" at its parks and hotels.

Cruz has said his plan is to take his currency one step further, to mainstream banks and other financial institutions.

So far, however, those who became employees of JC Consultores Laborales and were paid with checks backed by the private dollar have encountered problems with banks, creditors and utilities refusing to honor their checks. Several of those reached said they continue to believe in the project.

After receiving about a dozen payments in checks from United Cities, Kissimmee Utility Authority issued a warning to its customers that they risk having their services shut off if they pay with those checks.

"We know Disney issued currency like this, with the 'Disney Dollars' a while ago," spokesman Chris Gent said. "But everyone knows you can't come and pay your utilities with the Mickey Mouse dollars."

[Soldier4Christ]

Don't be lulled by dropping gas prices
Renews call for pressuring Congress to drop pumping limits

Gasoline prices may be dropping, but Americans should not be lulled into complacency, says WND Editor Joseph Farah, who renewed his call for pressuring Congress to drop its moratorium on offshore drilling and its ban pumping oil in Alaska's ANWR nature reserve.

"It will be a shame if Americans don't hold Congress' feet to the fire before members quietly adjourn for the year," Farah says. "This is an election year and the Democratic majority is clearly out of step with the will of the people on this issue. But the people's will must be expressed clearly and forcefully."

U.S. retail gasoline prices fell sharply in the last two weeks, just below $4 a gallon, in line with retreating crude oil markets. The U.S. average retail price for self-serve, regular unleaded gasoline fell to $3.9959, off nearly 12 cents in the past two weeks, according to the Lundberg Letter's nationwide survey of about 7,000 gas stations.

Oil has doubled in price over the past year, triggering inflation and pinching U.S. consumers who are dealing with a depressed housing market, job uncertainty and soaring food costs.

Farah is calling on Americans to flood Congress with e-mails, phone calls, letters and text messages demanding action that can lead the country in the direction of energy independence.

"Right now, that means lifting the moratorium," he says. "That's the first step. If we can't agree on that as Americans today, then we are in for a long period of national economic decline. If we can't push Congress to do the right thing with even a strong majority of Democrats behind us, then this country is simply no longer a place where the will of the people means anything."

Farah's goal is to force Congress to act in the next two months – before it adjourns for the year.

Farah's plan is simple: "I want to bring Congress to its knees," he says. "I want to melt down their phones. I want to flood their e-mail boxes. I want to hold them as political hostages. The ransom demand is to unleash the free market to begin exploring and pumping domestic crude oil and getting it to market as fast as possible. We've got 73 days to make our voices heard. Let's make history by bringing this recalcitrant body of elitists into compliance with the will of the people and the rule of law."
After eagerly waiting for someone else to take the lead on demanding action of Congress, Farah came to the conclusion no one else was going to do it.

"We're running out of time," Farah says. "If we let these rascals, these scoundrels, leave town before they lift all their ridiculous bans and restrictions on drilling for domestic oil, this country is headed for a major recession. Even worse, we'll head into a new year and a new presidency with the Washington elite thinking they put one over on us again."

Farah says the only thing that can prevent the disaster of gasoline prices of $6, $7, even $8 a gallon in the near future is a general uprising of the American people.

Besides the call to action, Farah is also devoting the current issue of Whistleblower magazine, the monthly print complement to WND, to the critical topic of "the energy independence revolution."

"It's time to stop business as usual," he says. "Every day, you need to make some phone calls, you need to write some emails, you need to use Skype and text messages and even send some letters through the Post Office. This grass-roots movement has to build steadily for the next 73 days. We cannot allow Congress to adjourn without lifting the ban on drilling in ANWR, off shore and on public lands under which we know there are vast reserves of oil."

Farah says it's a national emergency and needs to be treated as such.

"I hope radio talk show hosts across the country will embrace this bipartisan, non-partisan movement," he says. "There is no question in my mind this is what the American people want. Now it's just time for them to impose their will on their elected representatives who, in their chauffeured limousines and taxpayer-supported travel, are hopelessly out of touch with their constituents, with people who are finding it difficult to make ends meet."

Farah says he is convinced Congress will act only if the people steamroll members into action. He points to the way the Dubai port deal and so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" were killed by popular uprisings in recent years.

"We can make this happen, again," he says. "But this time, we won't just be stopping something bad from happening. We will be doing something that is very good for the country – something that will improve the lives of all of us, something that will improve national security, something vital for the future of the nation."

Congress is set to adjourn on or about Oct. 3.

"I'm going to do everything in my power to push Congress into action in the next 73 days," Farah says. "I know I can't do it by myself. But I know if the American people get mobilized nothing can stop them. You have to let members of Congress know you are serious. You have to persuade them and their staffs they are not returning to Washington next year if they fail to act in America's interest before they leave town."

Before then, you can reach members of the House by calling 202-224-3121 or 202-225-1904. The official House website contains web pages for all members and includes email addresses for most.

You can reach members of the U.S. Senate by calling 202-224-3121. The official Senate website also contains web pages for all members and includes email address for some.

[Barbara]

Thank you for that information, Pastor Roger,

As of today we're going to be writing letters and e-mailing everyday for the next 2 months!!! It won't take alot of time or money and we want to be part of the solution. We've gotta annoy and harass them until they stop harassing us!

[Soldier4Christ]

If there is anyone that is not quite sure what to say in an email or letter the following is what I am sending and have suggested for others already.


Even though gas prices have fallen recently action needs to be taken and soon to prevent them from climbing back up again. As my Representative in the U.S. House I strongly encourage you to take immediate action on this crisis that is hurting all of your constituents especially those on low and fixed incomes. This fuel crisis is causing un-needed financial stress and needs to have an immediate fix as well as a long range fix. It requires the immediate actions of all the U.S. Representatives, the U.S. Senators and the President.

I strongly urge you to take immediate action by lifting the ban on drilling in ANWR, off shore and on public lands under which we know there are vast reserves of oil before this current session ends.

Respectfully your constituent,

(don't forget to "sign" your name(s) even on the email)

[Barbara]

This is perfect and to the point. I appreciate again, your leadership and encouragement.

I'd like to say, please, everyone, urge your family and friends to do the same!!! United We Stand!!

Thanks Pastor Roger!

P.S. - Everything's sent, and we're going to continue writing every day!

[HisDaughter]

If there is anyone that is not quite sure what to say in an email or letter the following is what I am sending and have suggested for others already.


Even though gas prices have fallen recently action needs to be taken and soon to prevent them from climbing back up again. As my Representative in the U.S. House I strongly encourage you to take immediate action on this crisis that is hurting all of your constituents especially those on low and fixed incomes. This fuel crisis is causing un-needed financial stress and needs to have an immediate fix as well as a long range fix. It requires the immediate actions of all the U.S. Representatives, the U.S. Senators and the President.

I strongly urge you to take immediate action by lifting the ban on drilling in ANWR, off shore and on public lands under which we know there are vast reserves of oil before this current session ends.

Respectfully your constituent,

(don't forget to "sign" your name(s) even on the email)

I have already written one of my senators twice, but what the heck.  I used this and sent it to her, our other senator, our congressman, and the white house.  I also emailed Nancy Pelosi, but used my own words for that one.  Oops....there goes that hot head again....I really have some personal issues don't I?

[Soldier4Christ]

I really have some personal issues don't I?

 


 

[Soldier4Christ]

The shocking truth about inflation
Government says rate is low, so why do food and energy cost so much?

Why is it that the federal government says the U.S. has virtually no inflation – less that 2 percent – but everything keeps getting more expensive, especially food and gasoline?

Today, gasoline is well above $3.00 a gallon. "Sticker shock" comes not just from the cost of buying a new car, but from the $50.00 or more it costs to fill up the gas tank, even if you don't own an SUV.

You’re lucky if $100 buys two bags of groceries at the supermarket, even if you avoid the filet mignon.

Take a family of four to a movie theater to see a first-run film and it can cost $75 even in the Midwest. You will shell out somewhere between $6.00 and $9.00 just for one adult ticket, and you can end up spending somewhere between $65 to $75 total if all you do is spring for the luxury of popcorn and sodas.

Still, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in August 2007 a remarkably low inflation rate of only 1.7 percent.

Solving this riddle – that is, why everything costs so much when the government tells us inflation rates are low – is simple:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics lies.

Inflation numbers are intentionally manipulated to keep cost-of-living numbers low.

If the average chief executive officer cooked balance sheet numbers the way the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the Consumer Price Index, the CEO would be in jail, even without Sarbanes-Oxley reporting standards.

Why does the federal government lie about inflation?

Again, the direct answer is simple.

Telling the truth about inflation would require the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and that would be bad for economic growth.

Besides, hundreds of billions of dollars in government entitlement payment outflows depend on the inflation number.

For instance, federal law mandates that Social Security checks increase thanks to "cost-of-living adjustments," or COLAs, that are supposed to compensate for inflation.

So, higher inflation numbers cost the federal government millions more in increased Social Security payments.

But when the Bureau of Labor Statistics intentionally rigs the Consumer Price Index calculations to low-ball the inflation rate, Social Security entitlement payments are kept level.

As a result, retirees quietly lose billions of dollars that should have been paid out, had the cost of living numbers been reported honestly. But the government saves the expense.

How does the federal government manipulate inflation numbers?

The Consumer Price Index, or CPI, is the central statistic the federal government uses to calculate inflation.

The CPI is a complex government statistic that was introduced in the 1920s to track the market cost of a "basket of goods and services."

Beginning during the Carter administration, federal economists cleverly redefined the CPI, with the goal of removing from the index expensive items, including food and energy, that would push the CPI higher.

Today, the Federal Reserve when setting interest rates focuses on a variation of the CPI that measures "core inflation."

According to the Forbes "Investopedia," core inflation excludes items such as food and energy because food and energy "face volatile price movements."

In other words, since food and energy prices can spike upwards, as they have this year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates "core inflation" without food and energy prices, under the rationale that food and energy price spikes are merely temporary price shocks that would distort the measurement of underlying long-term inflation.

To a family faced with paying rising food costs to feed the kids and skyrocketing gas costs just get to work, the definition of "core inflation" at 2 percent is a joke, not at all reflective of the increased dollars the family has to shovel out just to get by.

Even more disturbing, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' calculation of "core inflation" is not limited merely to throwing food and energy prices out of the CPI.

The price of any good or service in the CPI market basket prone to spiking can be thrown out, under the rationale that the items with the largest price changes reflect passing market disequilibrium that would distort the measurement of long-term trends.

When removing expensive items from the CPI market basket of goods and services was not enough to depress inflation numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics innovated even more, changing the "weighted factors" used in calculating CPI statistics, so the results end up under-reporting the true inflation people experience in everyday living.

Econometrician John Williams maintains a website and publishes a newsletter devoted to tracking federal government manipulations of economic statistics.

Williams estimates that current Social Security payments are roughly half of what they should be if the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the Consumer Price Index honestly.

Many of the CPI manipulations were masterminded by Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve from 1987 under President Reagan to 2006 under President George W. Bush.

Williams points out that one of Greenspan's manipulations of the CPI involved the consideration that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak. So, Greenspan argued, the inflation measure should reflect the costs of buying hamburger, not steak.

"Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate," Williams commented, "but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival."

"The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak," Williams noted. "The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that."

Williams properly concluded that Greenspan's arguments violated the "intent and common usage of the inflation index."

"The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to it," Williams wrote. "The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its widespread usage."

Williams calculates that the manipulations of the CPI index cause inflation to be under-reported by as much as 7 percent.

The results of this under-reporting are dramatic, with the compounding effect just since the early 1990s reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security by more than a third.

Greenspan's recently released autobiographical book, "The Age of Turbulence," openly admits how political the calculation of inflation is.

He notes that Richard Nixon imposed wage-and-price controls in 1971, even though the rate of inflation then was less than 5 percent.

Greenspan argues that the 4.5 percent inflation we experienced for the half century since we abandoned the gold standard may become the norm for the future, with the unfortunate consequence that such a high rate means we will see our saved dollars lose half their purchasing power "in fifteen years or so."

At the height of the gold standard, between 1870 and 1913, just prior to World War I, the cost of living as calculated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York rose only 0.2 percent annually, Greenspan notes.

The dilemma the Fed faces under our fiat currency system is that to keep inflation truly low, the Fed has to keep interest rates high.

"Yet to keep the inflation rate down to a gold standard level of under 1 percent, or even a less draconian 1 to 2 percent range," Greenspan wrote, "the Fed, given my scenario, would have to constrain monetary expansion so drastically that it could temporarily drive up interest rates into the double-digit range not seen since the days of Paul Volcker."

High interest rates constrict the money supply, make borrowing difficult, and generally depress economic growth.

Greenspan's own solution was to keep interest rates artificially low, as low as the 1 percent interest rates Greenspan in 2003 aspired to hold that low for years – while simultaneously rigging the CPI numbers.

The Greenspan years can be characterized as a strategy of lying about inflation to avoid the adverse political consequences of being honest and facing the true cost-of-living music.

By lying about inflation, Greenspan justified 1 percent interest rates, which in 2003 were the lowest rates in 45 years, in a determined plan to keep the economy growing while he was at the helm.

But one result of the Greenspan liquidity party was to fuel real inflation.

So, when you wonder why food and gasoline cost so much when the government says inflation is low, just remember: You are being lied to – something we suspect you figured out long ago, just by going to the supermarket and the gas station.

[Soldier4Christ]

Headlines On Moneynetdaily:

"Beer sales fizzle to Great Depression levels
'Down 7 million pints a day from the height of the market in 1979'"

It is said there is a silver lining in every cloud.   

[Soldier4Christ]

Reid, Pelosi ready to compromise
Democrat leadership running scared on growing demand for oil

Are the Democratic leaders in Congress nervous about the growing grass-roots demand for lifting restrictions on domestic oil drilling?

Consider this: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has himself proposed a plan to open new areas for oil exploration – outraging senior members of his own caucus.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, ever aware of the way average Americans are being squeezed at the gas pump and through rising inflation due to higher energy prices, is supporting the plan.

While the proposal is drawing shrieks from those Democrats occupying safe seats in the House and Senate, it shows how vulnerable congressional Democrats might be to an uprising from voters in November.

The legislation, drafted by Reid and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., would open nearly a billion new acres off the coast of Alaska to study for drilling. It would also dramatically accelerate oil leases in the western and central Gulf of Mexico.

"I am unalterably opposed to drilling,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, (D-N.J., a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who cited a massive oil spill that closed nearly 100 miles of the Mississippi River last week.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., urged Reid to be "very careful about drilling off the coast of Alaska."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has one the opposite direction from Reid and Pelosi – sponsoring legislation to ban drilling in the North Aleutian Basin, an area that Congress has already opened to oil leasing.

Pelosi told The Hill that lawmakers should focus on the National Petroleum Reserve on Alaska's North Slope instead of offshore.

"There are tens of millions of barrels in the reserve," she said. "If you want oil in Alaska, drill there."

Rep. Peter Fazio, D-Ore., is among those who believe Democratic leaders haven't been rigid enough in opposing drilling.

"Some people are just scared of the accusation that not leasing more has an impact on oil prices," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Staying true to form ... cut and run when the going gets tough. I'm glad they are in this case.

[Soldier4Christ]

If there is anyone that is not quite sure what to say in an email or letter the following is what I am sending and have suggested for others already.


Even though gas prices have fallen recently action needs to be taken and soon to prevent them from climbing back up again. As my Representative in the U.S. House I strongly encourage you to take immediate action on this crisis that is hurting all of your constituents especially those on low and fixed incomes. This fuel crisis is causing un-needed financial stress and needs to have an immediate fix as well as a long range fix. It requires the immediate actions of all the U.S. Representatives, the U.S. Senators and the President.

I strongly urge you to take immediate action by lifting the ban on drilling in ANWR, off shore and on public lands under which we know there are vast reserves of oil before this current session ends.

Respectfully your constituent,

(don't forget to "sign" your name(s) even on the email)

I've only received an answer on this email from one person so far. Sen Obama and it's obvious that it is a form letter and that no one really read what I had to say. Go figure.

This is the response:

Thank you for advising me to oppose efforts to limit domestic oil and gas exploration as a method to address high gas prices. I was glad to hear from you.

I agree we must seek new domestic sources of energy as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce our dependence on petroleum imports. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or in restricted areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, however, are not the solution to the broader, multifaceted strategy needed. We should continue to look for new sources of domestic natural gas and oil production, but not unless the pursuit of alternative fuels and energy efficiency is conducted at far greater levels than has been done in the past, or we will never free our nation from the influence of global oil markets.

With regard to natural gas, the bulk of established recoverable reserves -- more than 80 percent according to a February 2006 U.S. Minerals and Management Service’s Report to Congress -- is located in areas already open to drilling. The 2005 Energy Policy Act created the largest federal natural gas R&D program ever established, providing $50 million annually for 10 years to improve access in ultra-deepwater and unconventional onshore gas resources. A study conducted by the National Petroleum Council identifies these unrestricted areas as the most likely sources of gas to meet future demands, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which provides the official energy statistics of the U.S. Government, predicts up to a 20 percent increase in gas supplies by 2025 from these open sources.

With regard to oil, the Energy Information Administration reports that drilling in the Outer Continent Shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions in areas that are not open to drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” To view the full report, you can visit:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

In addition, a House and Senate Joint Economic Committee analysis found that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could reduce fuel prices between 1 to 4 cents by 2018, an amount that could be reduced should the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) choose to limit oil production -- a strategy they have employed in the past. I have enclosed this study for your reference.

The solution to mitigating gas price shocks, therefore, is further distancing the nation from OPEC pricing and making a long-term transition to alternative energy sources and improved conservation or development of oil and natural gas substitutes. Without this approach, oil and gas drilling will only postpone what will be a major crisis -- far worse than current conditions.

In the short term, however, I have worked to address the unchecked speculation that is occurring in our energy markets and contributing to the fuel price volatility experienced by motorists. On June 12, 2008, I joined my colleague Senator Dick Durbin in introducing S. 3130, a bill to increase transparency in the oil futures markets by providing greater resources to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to detect and punish price manipulation and excessive speculation. This bill also moves the CFTC inspector general out of the CFTC Chairman’s office, and stops speculators from escaping U.S. regulations by manipulating the use of foreign markets.

Again, Roger, thank you for contacting me. You can rest assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues to develop policies that will lead to true energy independence while ensuring environmental sustainability.

[Soldier4Christ]

IF YOU WANT A RECESSION...

Michael Boskin, writing in this morning's Wall Street Journal calls "Obamanomics" a "recipe for recession." Obama's tax policies are extreme to a degree we have not seen in this country in a long time:

    The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!

As Boskin points out, with a Democratic Congress writing tax legislation things could get even worse:

    On economic policy, the president proposes and Congress disposes, so presidents often wind up getting the favorite policy of powerful senators or congressmen. Thus, while Mr. Obama also proposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch, he could instead wind up with the permanent abolition plan for the AMT proposed by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) -- a 4.6% additional hike in the marginal rate with no deductibility of state income taxes. Marginal tax rates would then approach 70%, levels not seen since the 1970s and among the highest in the world. The after-tax return to work -- the take-home wage for more time or effort -- would be cut by more than 40%.

That would, obviously, devastate the economy. Worse, it is unfair. It is simply immoral for the state to confiscate 70% of anyone's income. It would be deeply ironic if, at a time when the rest of the world is moving toward greater freedom in the form of lower tax rates, the United States were to regress to a state worse than the 1970s. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama promises.

[Barbara]

That any American would vote for Osama (I mean Obama, I'm getting them mixed up lately) is totally illogical, irresponsible and un-patriotic! I truly believe we are being destroyed from within and hope the Democratic supporters come to their senses.

[Soldier4Christ]

Falling oil prices: The downside
Lower prices mean less pain at the pump - but tougher times ahead for the economy.

Oil prices are falling sharply, and that's good news. But not nearly as good as you might think.

No doubt the drop, down to $120 by mid-day Monday, gives strapped consumers relief at the gas pump. Prices have dropped below $4 a gallon and could be headed toward $3.50, going by trading in wholesale futures markets. Any decline will be welcomed by Americans struggling under the burden of falling house prices, rising layoffs and stagnant wages.

But falling oil prices also suggest that the recession the U.S. has so far avoided is well on its way, as consumers pull back from the spending spree that drove economic growth earlier this decade. A weakening economy will mean more layoffs, further pressuring already reduced spending.

"There is no doubt that with gasoline prices dipping below $3.90 a gallon we have a bit of a reprieve on the energy front," Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg wrote in a report Monday, "but the reality is that this is a chicken and egg game because the decline is reflecting the consumer recession."
Energy use down

Perhaps the biggest factor behind the recent 18% drop in the price of a barrel of crude is sinking North American demand. Federal Highway Administration data show the number of miles driven in the U.S. dropped from year-ago levels for the seventh straight month in May.

May's decline was the third-largest monthly drop on record since 1942, says Stephen Schork, editor of the Schork Report energy and shipping newsletter in Villanova, Pa.

Americans are driving 4% less now than they were a year ago, Rosenberg writes, while energy use in inflation-adjusted terms has dropped 2% - an event he calls "extremely rare."

The pullback comes after the recent crude-price surge - the cost of a barrel doubled between Labor Day of 2007 and July 11 - seriously damaged the industrial economy, which despite its long decline remains a crucial source of better-paying jobs.

General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) on Friday posted a $15.5 billion second-quarter loss, as sales plunged 18% from a year ago. The company and rival Ford (F, Fortune 500) have slashed truck production, laid off thousands of workers and refocused on smaller cars as buyers flee the light trucks that had made the companies so much money.

Americans' decision to drive less comes at a time of rising stress. The economy has been hemorrhaging jobs and real wages, adjusted for inflation, have been flat to lower for a decade. Americans have enjoyed a rising standard of living in the meantime by borrowing - but with banks choking on subprime mortgages gone bad, the loan window is closing. Rosenberg calls a recent rise in the savings rate "a vivid sign that frugality is now replacing frivolity."

Meanwhile, the weak economy is spurring more companies to cut back. Outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas said Monday that layoff announcements jumped 26% from a month ago in July. The unemployment rate recently hit a four-year high at 5.7%.
How low can it go?

One unhappy fact is that a drop in the price of oil won't bring back many of the jobs lost over the past year to the energy-cost surge. Even were gas to fall to $3 a gallon - a move that is by no means assured - no one is going to beat a path to the dealership to buy pick-ups and SUVs that are now, in many cases, being phased out. GM recently announced plans to shut four SUV plants.

On a happier note, there is hope that the decline in oil prices has just begun. While Schork says it's anyone's guess where crude will trade - "By the end of the third quarter, there's a good chance oil could be below $100 a barrel, and a good chance it could be above $150," he says - others see a chance that the commodity, having enjoyed a head-spinning runup, could also drop more than anyone expects. Economist Jim Griffin notes at the ING Investment Weekly that crude's rally earlier this year became "nearly parabolic" - a sign that the decline could be steep.

Now a return to double-digit oil may not rescue the Hummer. But as the government's fiscal stimulus program did earlier this year, it could give consumers a little more change in their pockets, either to spend, salt away - or pay down their debts.