Posts Tagged ‘employment’

Stimulus An Even Bigger Treasonous Failure Than Americans Thought It Was, Says CBO

December 14, 2011

Obama spent $862 billion dollars of our money and our children’s money and their children’s children’s children’s money. 

A more precise estimate of what Obama spent is actually $3.27 TRILLION.  Because a lot of the stimulus required more expenditures down the road.

That bought Obama a lot of political payback as his crony capitalist fascist buddies who benefitted from all of this pork slush gave him over a billion dollars in camaign warchest money.

But did it help the United States?  Did it help the American people?

Stupid question, frankly.  It was never really intended to help anybody but Obama and his friends.

New CBO Reports Show Stimulus Even Less Effective Than Previously Believed
Kevin Glass   Managing Editor, Townhall.com
Dec 14, 2011

Buried within the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent report on the progress of President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a surprising admission: the CBO now estimates the stimulus might have been only half as effective as previously thought.

You wouldn’t know it from the headlines. “Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs,” reads a representative piece from Politico reporting on the November CBO report. This headline is accurate for the high-end estimate. That estimate, however, is essentially unchanged from previous reports. In the past, the CBO’s low estimate for jobs “created or saved” was 1.2 million which, in this report, has dropped to only 600,000.

A particularly unusual requirement in the stimulus was that the CBO issue regular reports on its estimates of the legislation’s economic effectiveness. Standard neo-Keynesian macroeconomics, to which the CBO has long seemed to subscribe in its economic modeling, posits that government spending creates a “multiplier effect” that ripples throughout the economy and creates more growth than it would normally appear to. The CBO’s newest report cuts one of their estimates in half, validating conservative criticism that they’ve been overestimating the effect of the stimulus.

If the debate about the law was shaped by the possibility that a $825 billion spending law would yield only six hundred thousand jobs, the debate may have been a lot different. Over $1.3 million dollars per job “created or saved?” That’s not a number that Democrats are eager to be touting on Capitol Hill.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put together a chart representing the CBO’s revised estimates:

It might be difficult to find those who would argue that the stimulus was worth it if the CBO’s new low-end estimate of jobs “created or saved” is accurate. The left will always have Paul Krugman and similar ideologically-aligned colleagues arguing that the CBO is wrong, that the economic multipliers are higher, and that the CBO is actually underestimating the growth that comes from a massive injection of government money into the economy. The problem for Krugman et. al is that the economics on such undertakings are far from settled.

Studies attempting to estimate the effects of countercyclical fiscal policy have found an incredibly wide range of possibilities. While the CBO estimates a multiplier effect between 0.5 and 2.5, academic literature is even further apart. IMF economists writing about recent studies found estimates that government spending could be either significantly harmful or even more effective than the most optimistic CBO scenario. In summing up the state of macroeconomics, they found this to be an “embarrassingly wide range of estimated multipliers.”

“Usually, the CBO is very careful when they apply the range of jobs created because they don’t really know for sure,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former CBO director and president of the American Action Forum. “I think it says a lot about the confidence of the profession in their ability to provide these estimates. There’s simply no consensus about the size of multiplier effects in the best of circumstances, and for those that were introduced in the midst of a large financial crisis-induced recession, it’s even more uncertain.”

The CBO’s modeling represents the wide range and uncertainty surrounding the economic community. It’s also not simply a matter of splitting the difference between the best-case and worst-case scenario being represented. The range presented is so wide precisely because economists are genuinely unsure of their methods and projections. New York Times economics reporter Ed Glaeser discussed this in writing,

The fundamental problem with acquiring certainty about Keynesian intervention is that anti-recessionary spending is just not very amenable to clean, compelling empirical evaluation… And so we are left wading in ignorance. It is a great tragedy that the most important area of economic decision-making is also the area where we will always know the least.

Economics was famously coined as “the dismal science” – and while the CBO is a nonpartisan, trustworthy institution, its estimates nonetheless represent value judgments and certain assumptions. Their willingness to revisit those assumptions in the wake of a stimulus that has not followed the models for what was promised by the Obama Administration is admirable. “They should be applauded for going back and reviewing on the basis of new research and new evidence,” Holtz-Eakin said.

Neither party has a monopoly on economics, despite what Obama’s economists may have claimed during the stimulus debate, and what the president himself regularly implies. Republicans who argue that the stimulus had no effect at all on employment are likely just as wrong as the news media that takes the CBO’s high-end estimates as fact. It’s difficult to spend that much money and have absolutely no effect on employment, no matter how strong a crowd-out effect might occur. The important thing is that the CBO effectively admitted their critics were correct that they have been overly optimistic in their economic estimates of the stimulus. Conservatives should applaud.

“Half as effective as previously thought”???  And this new analysis comes what, only what, three years after it passed?

In anothe couple of years, it’s going to be regarded as only half as effective as it was before they realized that it was only half as effective as they’d thought.

It’s an unmitigated disaster.

Obama foolishly and wickedly gambled away everything this country had – and like his good pal and trusted advisor Jon Corzine did - HE LOST OUR MONEY.

Barack Obama is the worst national disaster in American history.  He is the Antichrist’s useful idiot.  He may have already so crippled America that it will never be able to recover, and one more Obama term would certainly leave us guaranteed to collapse in the next ten years.

After Democrats’ Huge Tax Hike, Illinois Has Lost More Jobs Than Any Other State (Contrast With Texas Miracle)

September 1, 2011

Taxes work great.  Just ask all the newly unemployed people in Illinois:

After Quinn’s Big Tax Hike, Illinois Has Lost More Jobs Than Any Other State
Mike “Mish” Shedlock, Global Economic Trend Analysis|Aug. 31, 2011, 1:27 PM

Thanks to Illinois governor Pat Quinn and the Illinois legislature Illinois Loses Most Jobs in the Nation

In a trend that continues to worsen, more Illinoisans found themselves unemployed in the month of July.

Illinois lost more jobs during the month of July than any other state in the nation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report. After losing 7,200 jobs in June, Illinois lost an additional 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July. The report also said Illinois’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 percent. This marks the third consecutive month of increases in the unemployment rate.

Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinois’s economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinois’s employment numbers have done nothing but decline.

When it comes to putting people back to work, Illinois is going backwards. Since January, Illinois has dropped 89,000 people from its employment rolls.

A combination of high taxes, overspending and red tape do nothing but chase away job creators and leave too many citizens without jobs. Springfield needs to act now and reverse course.

Inquiring minds may also wish to check out the foreclosure pipeline in Illinois, 7th worst in the nation at 128 months (over 10 years).

See First Time Foreclosure Starts Near 3-Year Lows, However Bad News Overwhelms; Foreclosure Pipeline in NY is 693 months and 621 Months in NJ for more details on the mortgage mess everywhere.

Illinois Unemployment Rises from 9.1% to 9.5% after Tax Hike

Please listen to CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute John Tillman on WLS AM on the Fiasco in Illinois. It is an excellent interview that gets much better as it progresses.

A tip of the hat to John Tillman for an excellent, must-hear interview.

I have little to add to this miserable report other than to emphasize Pat Quinn is the worst governor in the nation. He will not be re-elected. Unfortunately, taxpayers will suffer the consequences of his stupidity for the full length of his term.

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

If you want to get out of this economic malaise, elect Governor Rick Perry of Texas.  Rick Perry and conservative Texas created nearly half the jobs in the nation since our so-called “recovery” began.

Because the former Senator from Illinois simply doesn’t have the faintest clue about what the hell he’s doing.

Do you want America to be more like Texas or more like Illinois?

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

August 18, 2011

Just over two years ago I wrote an article titled, “Minimum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease.”  And I began thus:

The Democrats raised the national minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25. They claim that the additional earnings will help the economy. Just like their stimulus did (right?).

Of course, raising the minimum wage is effectively a tax increase imposed primarily on small businesses. Things always seem so easy when your spending other peoples’ money.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, goes the saying. Whoever first said that surely must have had Democrats in mind.

The economist who literally wrote the book on Minimum Wages predicts that the minimum wage hike will result in the loss of 300,000 jobs. And that’s a HUGE number, consider there are only 2.8 million minimum wage workers; it’s 10.7% of the total minimum wage work force!

THAT’S the way to help the economy! THAT’S the way to help poor workers!

That article cites articles and sources AND MADE A PREDICTION.  And that prediction was that the minimum wage increase would result in far fewer jobs and hurt the poorest people.  You should read it now, given what you are about to see below:

Average Teen Unemployment Rate in D.C. is 50.1%, Analysis Shows
Friday, August 12, 2011
By Penny Starr

(CNSNews.com) – An analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau data by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) shows that the average unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in the District of Columbia was 50.1 percent as of June 2011. This corresponds with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showing that for D.C. the annual average unemployment rate for teens in 2010 was 49.8 percent.

Michael Saltsman, research fellow at EPI, provided the 50.1 percent figure to CNSNews.com as an update of an analysis he compiled based on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The 50.1 percent figure is almost double the average teen unemployment rate in June 2007 in the District, when it was 26.2 percent, according to Saltsman.

Since 2007, the rate has increased each year: 29.5 percent in June 2008, 44.7 percent in 2009 and 48.8 percent in 2010, based on EPI’s analysis.

“We’re in the midst of the third summer in a row where teen unemployment has been above 20 percent,” Saltsman said when he announced his report on July 8.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not keep monthly unemployment rates on teens, but its data showing the average annual unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in D.C. for 2010 was 49.8 percent.

The state with the second highest unemployment in the EPI analysis, California, also closely mirrors the BLS annual average for 2010 — 34.4 percent compared to EPI’s 34.6 percent.

The latest data from the BLS on average teen unemployment nationwide – all 50 states and the District of Columbia — as of July 2011 was 25 percent.

“Young people are facing more competition for fewer jobs, a lingering consequence of the recession and wage mandates that have eliminated entry-level opportunities,” Saltsman said. “The consequences for this generation of young people missing out on their first job are severe, including an increased risk of earning low wages and being unemployed again in future years.”

Saltsman’s analysis, which was released on July 8, ranked the 20 states with the highest average teen unemployment through May 2011: the first column shows the actual teen unemployment rate over the teen labor force; the second column reflects the number of discouraged teen workers added to the unemployment rate (also compiled from Census Bureau data).

District of Columbia – 49.0 percent, 52.2 percent

California – 34.6 percent, 36.2 percent

Georgia – 34.6 percent, 35.7 percent

Nevada – 34.3 percent, 36.4 percent

Washington – 33.2 percent, 34.2 percent

Idaho – 31.8 percent, 33.1 percent

West Virginia – 30.2 percent, 32.9 percent

Missouri – 29.6 percent, 31.2 percent

Florida – 29.4 percent, 31.4 percent

Kentucky – 29.0 percent, 30.3 percent

South Carolina – 28.5 percent, 29.0 percent

Rhode Island – 28.0 percent, 29.6 percent

Michigan – 27.6 percent, 29.1 percent

Mississippi – 27.5 percent, 30.7 percent

Tennessee – 26.9 percent, 27.4 percent

Arizona – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Arkansas – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Colorado – 26.1 percent, 26.7 percent

Illinois – 26.1 percent, 27.5 percent

Oregon – 25.8 percent, 26.4 percent

Two years ago Democrats hiked the minimum wage.  Two years ago Barack Obama signed it into law.  Two years ago Democrats predicted that this would lead to greater prosperity.  Two years ago conservative economists predicted it would be a total disaster.

Who was right???  Who was totally freaking WRONG???

Democrats are genuinely evil people.  And to the extent they actually have good intentions, THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH DEMOCRAT INTENTIONS.  Paved high and deep and wide.

Democrats demonize their opponents as being hateful and greedy.  And then Democrats cynically assure the poorest and most needy and most ignorant that they will help those people and make their lives better.

But do they make these people’s lives better?  HELL NO!  Their stupid and depraved Marxist policies undermine and destroy America.  In this particular case, Barack Obama and the Democrats said, “We’re going to demand that employers pay you a wage that exceeds what your labor is worth to them so that you lose your job and all sorts of minimum wage workers lose any chance whatsoever of finding a job.  And we franklydon’t give one freaking damn about the suffering or your family’s suffering because we know that you’re the kind of poor, ignorant schmuck who will believe our demonizing the next time and the time after that and the time after that.

Let me go back to my article that I wrote TWO DAMN YEARS AGO when this stupid and evil law got passed.  After guaranteeing the Democrat policy would fail; after guaranteeing that it would lead to huge job losses for teens and other minimum wage earners; and after talking about how profoundly stupid Democrat voters are for believing these lies over and over again (as I restate above), I concluded:

Democrats are like nurses who bring thirsty patients their very favorite brand of Kool-Aid. It’s a tasty beverage; don’t worry about the fact that it is contains arsenic (which just happens to be the primary ingredient in rat poison). It’s ultimately a terrible way to die, but what the heck, it sure taste good going down.

Obama has screwed all the people he promised that he would save.  Even the reliably liberal Washington Post acknowledges that blacks have been set back DECADES under Obama’s misrule [See update below].  Black unemployment is TWICE the national average under Obama, and even überüberlib Maxine Waters is saying that rabid black support for Obama is hurting the black community.  And the black congressional caucus is tired of making excuses for this failed leader.

And women are losing ground under Obama.

And young people are getting totally screwed under Obama.

Food, fuel and shelter have gone to hell under Obama.  Poor people are more vulnerable to changes in all three than the rich people that liberals always demonize Republicans for protecting.  Obama’s economic legacy is THE HIGHEST POVERTY INCREASE IN FIFTY YEARS

It’s long past time that the American people wised up to the liberal demagogic attacks and understood that liberal policies hurt minorities, hurt women, hurt the young and hurt the poor FAR more than the conservative policies that liberals constantly demonize.

When Democrats attack the businesses that create jobs, they won’t create jobs.  When Democrats attack the people who hire workers, they won’t hire workers.  When Democrats attack the people whose capital investment makes economic expansion possible, they won’t invest.

And the people who will suffer the most are those who are closest to the bottom time and time again.

[Update, 9/14/11: It is amazing how frequently liberal newspapers purge their sites of anything that could be unflatering toward liberalism or Democrats.  The story on black unemployment was purged by the Washington PostBut it is still available here via the Associated Press].

Bumps On The Road: If At First They Don’t Succeed, Obama, Democrats (And Their ‘Experts’) Lie, Lie Again

June 6, 2011

There’s a memory that still makes me laugh.  I had a friend who worked the graveyard shift when I was in college.  When he got off work (i.e., when I was just getting up) he took his car to the shop for a repair and had asked me to meet him there and give him a ride home.

So I was standing there when the mechanic began to explain what was wrong with my friend’s car.  And my friend, wanting to see, put his hand on the radiator of the still hot engine.  He leaped back holding his hand.  The mechanic looked at him for a second, shook his head, and continued explaining.

Soon enough, my friend AGAIN put his hand on the radiator.  With the same result.  This time the mechanic looked at me and shook his head before going on.

You won’t believe this, but my friend actually did it a third time.

And the mechanic looked at him and said, “You just don’t learn, do you?”

I am here to tell you that Democrats are every bit as dumb as my friend.  And the only thing more hopelessly stupid than a liberal is a liberal “expert.”

Our economy is in a state of ruin.  Many of the most important numbers – such as unemployment and housing and manufacturing and consumer confidence – aren’t just as bad as they were when Obama took over, but far, far worse.  And with no sign of getting better.

If you survey the history of economics, there has never been a recession that lasted forever.  Sooner or later, things hit their bottoms and begin to get better.  Most severe recessions last about two years.  Even during the Great Depression – which in fact was a Great Depression for virtually every country on the planet – most of those nations emerged after no more than a few years.  The ONLY exception was the United States of America, which was being led by a socialist named FDR with near dictatorial power.  That recession/depression just went on and on and on.  FOR SEVEN YEARS LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was such a disaster that we actually amended the Constitution to make sure that we’d never end up with another FDR ever again.  Roosevelt knew absolutely nothing about business or economics and actually thought that by punishing business he’d somehow get more employment.  Like my friend, he repeated the same mistakes again and again and again, constantly expecting different results than the ones he kept getting.

And that is precisely where we are today: helplessly writhing in the grasp of a dictatorial socialist fool.

Allow me to show you how Obama, how the Democrats and how their “economists” – to put it in the words of the mechanic – “just don’t learn.”

Let’s begin with the beginning of the Obama regime, with his “stimulus” (also known as the Generational Theft Act): pork barrel spending that will ultimately cost the American people $3.27 TRILLION.

What did Obama promise you, as even the New York Times was forced to admit?

In the weeks just before President Obamatook office, his economic advisers made a mistake. They got a little carried away with hope.

To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate  —  then 7.2 percent  —  rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

We now know that this forecast was terribly optimistic.

According to Obama’s forecase, unemployment would NEVER rise above 8% if that massive government spending aka the stimulus was passed.  And unemployment would be UNDER 7% this year.  Let’s chalk that up as a great big giant “NOT!!!”

OUCH!!!  That’s one hand on the hot radiator.

Obama and the Democrat Party and their “economists” continued to stuipdly talk about all the jobs he “saved.”  The only problem was that “saved jobs” had NEVER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF ECONOMICS BEEN CONSIDERED PRIOR TO THE AGE OF OBAMA:

Harvard economics Professor Gregory Mankiw said, “there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved.” Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University said “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?”

And they went on and on with pure unadulterated totally bogus bullcrap to pat themselves on the back for what in reality was a total fiasco.  They just don’t learn, do they?

“OUCH!!!”

Let’s call that a second hand on the hot radiator – even though they did it over and over and over again – and are STILL doing it as we speak.

But that wasn’t it with this pile of pure fools.  If at first your policy fails, keep trying to fail more and bigger:

Obama Defends Stimulus Amid Calls For Round Two
by Mara Liasson   July 8, 2009

President Obama is being forced to wade into a domestic economic debate that just won’t go away: As the unemployment rate rises, there have been calls for a second round of stimulus spending.

Obama is in a difficult position. He has to defend his $787 billion economic stimulus package at a time when there are few visible signs that it has had an effect. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, even though the White House predicted in January that with the stimulus bill, it would rise to only about 8 percent

That’s right, boys and girls.  Obama and his ilk couldn’t learn from the hot radiator.  They assumed that something else must have been hot, and they weren’t really touching what they’d just been touching.  Massive government spending was just an unmitigated failure that the answer was clearly …. (drumroll, please) …. EVEN MORE MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!

“OUCH!!!”  That’s a third hand on that hot radiator.

Then there were the “green shoots” Obama saw in 2009:

Obama sees the green shoots of recovery
25/03/09 05:36 CET

US President Barack Obama believes his strategy to battle the economic downturn is beginning to show some positive results.

It comes as skepticism is growing as to the wisdom of his massive budget plan. The president took to the podium to defend his actions and answer questions from the world’s media. He said: “We’ve put in place a comprehensive strategy designed to attack this crisis on all fronts. It’s a strategy to create jobs, to help responsible homeowners, to restart lending and to grow our economy over the long-term. And we are beginning to see signs of progress.” Next week Obama makes his debut on the world stage when he attends the G20 summit in London. He outlined what he was looking for from the talks. “The goal of the G20 summit, I think, is to say to all countries ‘let’s avoid steps that could result in protectionism that would further contract global trade.’ Let’s focus on how are we going to move our regulatory process forward,” he said. Obama claims his economic plan, along with his new budget which is being prepared, is based on job creation, a more fluid housing market and a banking industry that is prepared to get credit flowing again.

Were there ever any green shoots?  Nope.  And certainly if there WERE, it’s a bunch of dead grass now.  Obama’s bullcrap stinks to high heaven, but it lacks the power to fertilize much of anything.

“OUCH!!!”

You put your hand there AGAIN, Barry Hussein?  Man, you just don’t learn, do you?

You might have thought my friend was pretty dumb.  But history would prove that he’s smarter than the man who is now President of the United States.  My friend only did it three times.  Obama’s up to four and counting.

Because what did we have in 2010 but “recovery summer”???

Obama, Biden declare ‘Recovery Summer’
By MIKE ALLEN | 6/17/10 5:06 AM EDT

Vice President Joe Biden today will kick off the Obama administration’s “Recovery Summer,” a six-week-long push designed to highlight the jobs accompanying a surge in stimulus-funded projects to improve highways, parks, drinking water and other public works.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, said: “This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet, with thousands of highly-visible road, bridge, water and other infrastructure projects breaking ground across the country, giving the American people a first-hand look at the Recovery Act in their own backyards and making it crystal clear what the cost would have been of doing nothing.”

Biden, President Barack Obama and other administration officials will travel to more than two dozen Recovery Act project sites in coming weeks. On Friday, the president will travel to Columbus, Ohio, to mark the groundbreaking of the 10,000th Recovery Act road project to get under way. The administration says the road improvement project in downtown Columbus is expected to create over 300 construction jobs, and will contribute to a broader economic development effort in the area around Nationwide Children’s Hospital. [...]

“OUCH!!!”

Oh, come ON, Barry Hussein.  Are we going to have to put a cork on your fork so you don’t stab out your other eye???

Okay, so last year we were at “wreckovery summer.”  What now?  I mean, what else can this fool possibly say?

Well, now all the terrible news about unemployment, about housing, about manufacturing, about consumer confidence is all just a “bump in the road.”

There are always going to be bumps on the road to recovery,” Obama said.

“OUCH!!!”

Obama is a far more stupid and more foolish man than my friend will ever be.

The question is, just how stupid are YOU???  I hope not so much as to actually re-elect this complete moral idiot.

In August 2009, while Obama was still talking about his “green shoots,” we had this prediction:

Peter Schiff, Pres Euro Pacific Capital: “The recession might be coming to an end; the problem is the depression is just getting started.”

“Newsweek trumpets the recession is over.  But it’s just a temporary ‘good time’ like the high you get if you do too much crack cocaine; with the stimulus being an artificial stimulant that gets us deeper and deeper into debt.  Remember the problem was we took on too much debt; well, now we have even more debt than when the recession began.”

OUCH!!!

Only this one is YOUR hand on the boiling hot radiator of an economy in meltdown …

Misery Index HIGHEST EVER, Hiring Only 70% Of 2006 Levels, And Boy Do We Ever Need A New President

May 16, 2011

Economics statistics are well on their way to becoming a Department in the 1984-style “Ministry of Truth.”

We start with misery, and the real apples-to-apples misery index that we can compare to the misrule of Jimmy Carter.  From Economic Policy Journal:

John Williams, over at Shadow Stats, compiles economic data for inflation and unemployment the way it used to be calculated pre-1990. Based on that data, the CPI inflation rate is over 10%, and the unemployment rate is over 15% (see charts). The Misery Index is the sum of the current inflation rate and the unemployment rate.  If it were to be calculated using the older methods, the Index would now be over 25, a record high. It surpasses the old index high of 21.98, which occurred in June 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. Most believe the height of the Index along with the Iranian hostage crisis is what caused Carter to lose his re-election bid.

 

 

Using current calculation methods, April unemployment came in at 9.0% and the annualized April CPI number came in at 4.8%, for a Misery Index reading of 13.8.

The last time the Index came in with a higher reading with this index reading was in March 1983, with a reading of 13.90.

Ronald Reagan, of course, was president in 1983.  Reagan had a monster that Jimmy Carter largely created called out-of-control inflation.

As I previously explained:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%.  And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution.  And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

Jimmy Carter didn’t have an answer for the economy, so he just made it worse and worse and WORSE.  Reagan had an answer.  He not only made it better; he established a trajectory of economic success.

And of course, we’re heading right back to that time of shocking inflation.  The cost of EVERYTHING is going up.  And there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Barack Obama has an answer that is working.  Which is only going to make the pain last longer and the solution more difficult.  Presuming there is another Reagan waiting in the wings for that time when the American people overwhelmingly abandon Democrats and revile them for the failures that they are and basically always have been.

So what does the mainstream media do with that?

They create the propaganda that somehow Obama is a new Reagan, despite the fact that Obama reviles everything Reagan stood for, just as Reagan would have reviled everything Obama stands for.

Then there’s the enemployment beast.  How’s THAT hope and change working out for you?

Here’s some new news about hopey changey from the Wall Street Journal:

 MAY 16, 2011
Why the Job Market Feels So Dismal
The number of hires is the same today as it was when we were shedding jobs at record rates.
By EDWARD P. LAZEAR

Why don’t American workers feel that the labor market is on the mend? After all, the May 6 jobs report could suggest that the labor market is improving. Nonfarm employment rose by 244,000 and employment growth over the last three months is averaging over 200,000 per month. With unemployment at 9%, employment is still down many millions from where it should be, but up from its recession lows.

The fact is the jobs numbers that create so much anticipation from the business press and so many pundit pronouncements do not give a clear picture of the labor market’s health.  A better understanding requires an examination of hires and separations, or what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data. Here are some surprising facts:

First, the increase in job growth that occurred over the past two years results from a decline in the number of layoffs, not from increased hiring. In February 2009, a month during which the labor market lost more than 700,000 jobs, employers hired four million workers. In March 2011, employers hired four million workers. The number of hires is the same today as it was when we were shedding jobs at record rates.

We added jobs because hires exceeded separations, not because hiring increased. There were 4.7 million separations in February 2009. In March 2011 that number had fallen to 3.8 million. The fall in separations reflects a decline in layoffs, which went from 2.5 million per month in February 2009 to 1.6 million per month in March 2011. One small piece of good news is that the just-released April data showed hires up about 2% over last year’s average and 12% above the low reached in January 2010.

The decline in layoffs is not unexpected and does not necessarily reflect labor-market health. Layoffs tend to occur early in a recession. When an economy has reached bottom and has already shed much of its labor, layoffs slow. But that doesn’t mean that the labor force is recovering. We could have high unemployment and a stagnant labor force even when layoffs are low. Isn’t the fact that hires exceed separations indicative of a healthy labor market? Unfortunately, no.

At any point in the business cycle, even during a recession, American firms still hire a huge number of workers. That’s because most of the action in the labor market reflects “churn,” the continual process of replacing workers, not net expansion or contraction of employment. The lowest number hired in any month of the current recession was 3.6 million workers. Even during the dismal year of 2009 there were more than 45 million hires.

Bear in mind that the U.S. labor force has more than 150 million workers or job seekers. In a typical year, about one-third or more of the work force turns over, leaving their old jobs to take new ones. When the labor market creates 200,000 jobs, it is because five million are hired and 4.8 million are separated, not because there were 200,000 hires and no job losses. When we’re talking about numbers as large as five million, the net of 200,000 is small and may reflect minor, month-to-month variations in the number of hires or separations.

The third fact puts this in perspective. In a healthy labor market like the one that prevailed in 2006 and early 2007, American firms hire about 5.5 million workers per month. Recall that the current number of hires is four million and it has not moved much from where it was two years ago. The labor market does not feel like it is expanding if hiring is not occurring at a recovery-level pace—and that means at least a half million more hires per month than we are seeing now.

The combination of low hiring and a large stock of unemployed workers, now 13.7 million, means that the competition for jobs is fierce. Because there are now many more unemployed workers, and because hiring is only about 70% of 2006 levels, a worker is about one-third as likely to find a job today as he or she was in 2006. It is no wonder that workers do not feel that the labor market has recovered.

One final fact is worth noting. Healthy labor markets are characterized not only by high levels of hiring, but also by high levels of separations. Although it is true that the importance of quits relative to layoffs rises during good times, even the number of layoffs was greater in the strong labor market of 2006-07 than it is now. No one would suggest that layoffs are good for workers, but what is good is a fluid labor market, where workers and firms constantly seek to produce better products and to find more efficient ways to produce them. High labor market churn is a characteristic of a strong economy. It generally means that workers are moving to better jobs in growing sectors that pay higher wages and away from declining sectors that pay lower wages.

Allowing maximum flexibility encourages fluidity and means that employers are willing to hire workers who lose their jobs elsewhere. Many European countries have restricted mobility by imposing severance pay penalties on employers that lay workers off. More than reducing layoffs, these rigidities make employers reluctant to hire because of the penalties that they will later incur if a layoff is necessary. Such restrictions are in large part responsible for the chronically high rates of unemployment that have been prevalent in many European countries.

The prescription for the American labor market is simple: low taxes on capital investment, avoidance of excessively burdensome regulation, and open markets here and abroad. We must create a climate in which investment is profitable, productivity is rising, and employers find it profitable to increase their hiring rate. These are the mantras that economists have chanted in the past. But they are our best bet for ensuring a dynamic and growing labor market.

Mr. Lazear, chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009, is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow

Wait a minute.  What was that one sentence again?

Because there are now many more unemployed workers, and because hiring is only about 70% of 2006 levels, a worker is about one-third as likely to find a job today as he or she was in 2006.

Yeah, but George Bush was bad by mainstream media propagandist definition, and Obama is good by the same standard.

If you want welfare, vote for Obama.  You’ll get it until United States of America implodes into a failed banana republic.  And then you’ll get the Marxist-fascist hybrid the left has been dreaming of for the last fifty years.  You want a job?  Vote for a conservative Republican.

ObamaCare Is Killing Private Practice Physicians

January 8, 2011

First ObamaCare had death panels.  Then massive public outrage forced Democrats to abandon the death panels.  Then Obama brought back his death panels by sneaking them in via backdoor regulation in secrecy.  Then the public exploded in anger again.  And now the death panels are gone again.  At least until the next time these dishonest rodents go behind our backs to impose vile policies the people have already loudly rejected.

Then there’s the case of all the waivers.  As of now, 222 businesses have been given waivers from ObamaCare provisions because otherwise they would have to dump their employee health coverage altogether.  Including quite a few unions that pushed for ObamaCare, by the way.

Doctors are still getting shoved into nasty little death panels, however.  Because ObamaCare is murdering them:

12.21.10 | Sandy C. Pipes | MedCitizen
Private practice doctors: Another Obamacare casualty?

While making the case for his health reform package, President Obama argued that his proposal would make life easier for small-business owners.

Unfortunately, Obamacare threatens to undermine a group of small-business owners that is perhaps more important than any other to his reform effort — doctors in private practice.

The number of privately owned medical practices has declined sharply in the past five years. In 2005, at least two-thirds of practices were in private hands. That figure has dropped to less than half today — and is expected to sink below 40 percent by next year.

Many doctors, specifically those who have just completed a resident specialty, are now choosing not to enter private practice in the first place. Instead, they’re heading to salaried positions at large hospitals. Last year, 49 percent of first-year specialists chose hospital employment.

Obamacare will only exacerbate these trends. Some of the law’s dictates will make it more expensive to operate small practices — even though the rules are supposed to reduce medical costs.

Take the new law’s health IT initiative, which pushes doctors to set up extensive electronic health records in hopes of better coordinating care among providers. More information, the law’s boosters argue, means less waste and lower costs.

But many private practices can’t afford to drop five or six figures on expensive health IT systems that may not even save them money.

Boosters of health IT acknowledge that large organizations are more likely to enjoy its benefits. But shoving patients into ever-larger medical groups may not actually bring down costs.

The reason, as representatives of the American Medical Association recently warned, is that big hospital networks have greater market power. They can use that power to keep prices high, and there’s little that insurers — and even less that consumers — can do about it.

Paying more for treatment doesn’t necessarily guarantee better access or quality. Without an ownership stake in their practices, salaried doctors have an incentive to work the hours for which they’re paid — and no more. Fewer hours for doctors means fewer appointments for patients.

History demonstrates that these incentives matter. In the 1990s, several large hospitals bought up practices and put doctors on flat salaries. As Dr. Bill Jessee, CEO of the Medical Group Management Association, observed, doctors suddenly “weren’t working as hard as they were before their practice was acquired.”

Proponents of Obamacare have conveniently ignored these lessons. President Obama’s top health care aide Nancy-Ann DeParle, for instance, wrote in the August issue of the Journal of Internal Medicine that the new law is “likely to lead to the vertical organization of providers and accelerate physician employment by hospitals.” These organizations are called Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs.

Such vertical integration may prove costly. Already, hospitals lose money on a substantial chunk of the people they see. In New York, for example, hospitals take a loss on more than 70 percent of patients.

That’s mostly because of the stingy reimbursement rates paid by government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. In 2008, the average Medicare reimbursement in New York represented a 4.7 percent underpayment. Medicaid’s reimbursements were even worse — as little as 64 percent of a hospital’s actual treatment cost. Those with private insurance are forced to pay more for care to make up the difference.

Hospitals’ Medicaid losses are compounded by the fact that the program’s beneficiaries use far more medical services than other patients. On average, the privately insured visit the doctor three and a half times a year. Medicaid patients make an average of seven visits.

Yet Obamacare will add 18 million new individuals to the program’s rolls by the end of the decade — and thus stretch our healthcare infrastructure even thinner.

Primary care physicians are already in short supply. The Center for Workforce Studies predicts that by 2020 there will be a shortage of 45,000 family doctors and 46,000 surgeons. Unfortunately, Obamacare provides no funding to significantly increase their numbers.

Emergency rooms will have to pick up the slack. The new law could result in as many as 41 million additional trips to the emergency room each year.

The health reform law was sold as a way to fill in the cracks in America’s fractured healthcare system. Instead, it has only made them wider.

This is just another example of how Marxist Democrats imposed their utter contempt for the free market system.  Doctors who don’t have their own practices have far less incentive to work hard when they receive the same salary whether they work hard or not.  And at the same time, the Medicaid patients go to the hospital twice as often as people who have insurance because it doesn’t COST them anything to do so.  Contempt like that is only possible for freeloaders who don’t have a stake in anything and don’t have to worry about their premiums going up like the people who pay into the system to keep the whole thing running.

This is why I keep saying that Democrats are either genuinely evil or totally stupid.  And either way they are moral idiots.

This is hardly the only article, and hardly the only issues that explain why ObamaCare is so vile.  I’ve got plenty of articles which detail plenty of reasons why ObamaCare is murder for the doctors whom our entire medical system depends upon:

Medical Pros Needed To Staff ObamaCare Getting Canned Because Of ObamaCare

Medical Doctor Points Out That Doctors Will Be Fined Or Jailed If They Put Patients First Under ObamaCare

ObamaCare Driving Essential Primary Care Physicans Out Of Medicine

Doctor Cassell: ‘If You Voted For Obama, Seek Urologic Care Elsewhere’

ObamaCare Factoid: Access To Health Care Doesn’t Mean Squat When Hospitals, Doctors And Pharmacists Bail

38 States Now Working To Preempt ObamaCare Disaster

Mayo Clinic Realizes ObamaCare A Total Disaster, Stops Accepting Medicare

Harvard Medical School Dean Flunks Democrat Health Bill

Why Won’t Obama Invite The Doctors Who Will Resign If His Health Agenda Passes?

Wall St. Journal Bursts The Obama Bubble: ObamaCare Is All About Rationing

And yes, that IS just for starters.

ObamaCare pledges to push something like 30 million more people into the health care system even as it forces the doctors who ARE the health care system to leave medicine.

How does that NOT sound like a total disaster in the making?

Obama Touts 55,000 Auto Jobs Created At Taxpayer Cost Of Only $84.8 BILLION

July 31, 2010

You can see a union auto worker saying, “My job pays me a ridiculous $73 an hour with bennies, but it cost the taxpayer an even more ridiculous $1,541,818 to “create or save” my job.”

Pretty good deal for America, huh?

Well, it’s Obama’s argument that it’s a good deal for America.

From Bloomberg:

President Barack Obama, in the heart of the U.S. auto industry, told a crowd of workers that the government bailouts of General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC are giving taxpayers a return on their investment.

Heading into a congressional election season in which polls show the public skeptical about the $84.8 billion rescue and anxious about economy, Obama is using the backdrop of Detroit- area plants owned by GM and Chrysler to promote what he says is an industry revival that has saved more than a million jobs.

“The fact that we’re standing in this magnificent factory today is a testament to the decisions we made,” Obama said at a Chrysler factory that recently added a second shift of workers to build the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Obama told about 1,000 employees at the factory that, if his opponents had been successful in blocking aid for automakers, their jobs might not exist. Their efforts are “proving the naysayers wrong,” he said.

“They said we should just walk away and let those jobs go,” Obama said. “Today, this industry is growing stronger. It’s creating new jobs.”

Voter Skepticism

Voters aren’t persuaded. A Bloomberg National Poll conducted July 9-12 that shows the federal assistance package to automobile companies is becoming less popular: 48 percent say they became less supportive in recent months versus 17 percent who say they have become more supportive.

Steve Rattner, the former head of the president’s automotive task force, said that perception is disappointing.

“It appears that those of us behind it haven’t succeeded in convincing people that it’s worked,” he said in an interview.

Since GM and Chrysler exited bankruptcy a little more than a year ago, the industry — including Ford Motor Co., which didn’t seek federal aid — has re-hired 55,000 workers after shedding 334,000 in the year before.

So $84.8 billion spent, and 55,000 jobs rehired back.

Oh, and the 55,000 jobs that came back counts rehires for Ford, the company that didn’t take any of Obama’s bailouts.  Or Bush’s, for that matter.

One million, five hundred and forty-one thousand, eight hundred and eighteen dollars per job.  And Obama is pitching it as some kind of grand achievement worthy of a messiah.

This gets us back to the trillion dollars stimulus only adding a laughable 260 jobs per state.  This gets us back to the fact that only 6% of Americans – fewer than believed they’d been anal-probed by aliens – believed the stimulus created any jobs.  This gets us back to the fact that economists are saying that the stimulus didn’t help create jobs.  This gets to the fact that Obama’s stimulus actually COST our economy jobs by sucking money out of the private sector and then squandering it.

Unions are happy.  Of course, our children are ultimately going to be chained to giant millstones and forced to pull them in a circle for the rest of their lives.  As will everyone else, including senior citizens – at least until they get “permanently retired” by a death panel.  But unions are happy.  And if you’re not happy, well, screw you, you racist.

And what do we get for our $85 billion besides a payoff to the labor unions that got Obama elected?  Basically, we get a mostly electric clown car called the Chevy Volt that’s going to be “a car for idiots.”  It will have some cache as the car for “for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are.”  Which is tantamount to the central selling principle behind the emperor’s new clothes.

Every single Clown Car GM sells is going to lose money.  But that’s okay.  Because Barry Hussein – courtesy of the American taxpayer – will subsidize every Clown Car that is sold at a loss.

As for Obama’s claim that he’s “saved” a million jobs, that’s the kind of reasoning that only someone idiotic enough to buy a $41,000 clown car to show how superior they are would buy.  How about this: Bush saved fifty million jobs.  If you don’t think he did, you prove he didn’t.  In fact, Bush saved the world.  Because aliens with superior technology would have invaded earth had Bush not been commander-in-chief.  Prove they wouldn’t have.

“One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved,'” said Carnegie Mellon University professor Allan Mentzler. “It doesn’t exist for good reason: How can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?”  Which is to say, a purely rhetorical argument that no American president has ever in history had the naked chutzpah to use amounts to the heart of Obama’s economic policy.

Had George Bush used that asinine argument to justify his economic leadership and vision, he would have been laughed right out of the White House by the media.  But Barack Obama is using the asinine argument, so it obviously must be true.

We are about to see why the Soviet Union failed.  The government spent all kinds of money producing crap cars to keep the party proletariat employed.  But they were crap cars.  And nobody bought them.  The same thing applies to Obama’s GM bailout and the Chevy Klown Kar.  And the same with all the boondoggles Obama built with our trillion dollars (actually with what will become our $3.27 trillion, but who’s really counting any more?).

Obama’s boast about the auto industry jobs is a microchosm of the overall stupidity of Obama’s “stimulus.”  We have spent over $534 BILLION (that’s the 62% of the $862 billion stimulus that has been spent so far) in order to create some 599,108 jobs.

Do the math.

That boils down to an average of $892,220 PER JOB.

I mean, that ridiculous figure is less than the even more ridiculous figure of more than $1.5 million for each union auto job.  But then again, some of those nearly 600,000 jobs probably weren’t union, which accounts for the relatively trivial figure of $892,000.

Obama is cheering all this, but the term “Pyrrhic victory” comes to mind.  These victories are going to implode America into a ruin unlike anything that even historians have ever heard of.

Martha Coakley’s Brazen Violation Of The Civil Rights Act

January 15, 2010

Newsflash: the Civil Rights Act actually protects some groups that the left despise.

Oh, well.  Civil Rights, Cybil bites.  Who cares about the civil rights of religious people?

Martha Coakley apparently hates Catholics, unless they happen to be pedophile priests, in which case they’re okay.

Democrats can easily screw over any class of people they don’t like (like white men, rich people, non-union workers, religious people, and babies for starters).  Because their view is that government giveth rights, and government can taketh away rights whenever it wants.

The following YouTube clip is shocking audio of Massachusetts Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, arrogantly informing Catholics (and, by extension, other Christian believers who might wish to exercise their religious rights of conscience), “You can have religious freedom, you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

Attorney General Coakley, with all due respect to her office, is wrong. Her statement mischaracterizes the law and, if applied, would amount to unlawful religious discrimination. Religious freedom means much more than believers merely being free to voluntarily segregate themselves from certain professions (especially the caring professions which are so often reflective of the very essence of religious faith).

Under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment. This means employers cannot treat you any less favorably because of your religious beliefs or practices, nor can they force you to stop participating in religious activities as a condition of your employment. And this means emergency rooms cannot discriminate against practicing Catholics or others who hold religious values.

That’s okay.  Martha Coakely has already vowed to ignore the Constitution and vote for a profoundly unconstitutional ObamaCare boondoggle that forces Americans to purchase insurance whether they want to or not in a blatant expansion of raw government power.  Why should she worry about an insignificant little detail like the Civil Rights Act?

Or maybe she’s going to tell us that she didn’t SEE the violations of the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution, the way she lyingly claimed she didn’t see her goon violating the civil rights of a reporter who tried to ask her a question about her being in bed with health care lobbyists.

VIA CNBC: ‘Many Firms Reluctant To Hire Because Of [Democrats'] Taxes, Rules’

January 13, 2010

Enjoy your unemployment, courtesy of the Obama administration.

And understand that the fact that you NEED unemployment is also courtesy of the Obama administration.

Is Obama helping the economy, or hurting it?  What we find out is that businesses and the people who actually hire and create jobs understand that what Obama has already done has been bad, and what he is trying to do is even worse.

The key phrase of the article is “paralyzing uncertainty.”

Obama, thy name is turd.  And according to Rasmussen, 53% of the American people now recognize it.

Many Firms Reluctant to Hire Because of New Taxes, Rules
Published: Tuesday, 12 Jan 2010
By: Albert Bozzo
Senior Features Editor

A potential wave of new regulation and higher taxes may be scaring many businesses from hiring, prolonging any rebound in employment, say business groups and economists.

The prospect of increased federal and state regulation and taxes has been particularly disruptive to the hiring plans of small- and medium-sized businesses, which have historically generated about two-thirds of the nation’s jobs.

“I don’t really see the private sector hiring much in the next few months,” says Brian Bethune, an economist at Global Insight. “For the small-business sector there is just too much uncertainty about what happens beyond 2010.”

Not only is the Obama administration seeking to push through major overhauls of energy and health care policy, it is also expected to impose dozens of new workplace rules and raise income taxes.

As Washington and Wall Street grow increasingly restless about the unusually slow pace of job creation and the risk of a so-called jobless recovery, key business groups have begun to bang the drum more loudly.

In reporting that its small business optimism index fell for the second straight month in December, the National Federation of Independent Business Tuesday said members’ No. 2 reason for not expanding payrolls was the prospect of government policy initiatives.

Twelve percent said it was not a good time to expand because of the political environment. Over the next three months, 15 percent said they plan to reduce employment, while eight percent plan to create new jobs.

“We’re hearing it more and more from our membership,” says Bill Rys, the NFIB’s tax counsel. “At the federal level, there’s uncertainty about tax rates, health care costs, energy costs. You also have what’s going on at the state and local levels, with new fees and taxes. They’re reluctant to jump back in.”

Rys says the effect has been more pronounced in the past few months, perhaps mirroring the legislative progress of the massive health care reform bill, the highly-publicized Copenhagen climate change conference and new EPA rules on carbon emissions, as well as the approach of 2010, when the near decade-long Bush administration tax cuts are expected to expire.

The NFIB has some 350,000 members with an average size of eight to ten employees.

Much like the severity of the recession, the degree of potential government change is a historic first for many business owners.

“When they went into business this isn’t something they considered,” says Rys.

The American Chamber of Commerce’s latest economist forecast cited similar impediments.

“To create jobs we must ease the uncertainty over tax increases as well as health, environmental, labor, legal  and fiscal policies,” the group’s president and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a speech Tuesday.

Chamber members are predominantly small companies with ten or less employees.

In a recent interview with CNBC.com, the group’s chief economist, Martin Regalia, described a paralyzing uncertainty over policy issues, saying that many members “had adopted an attitude of survival” and “few talked about net new hiring.”

If so, that will not go unnoticed. Small businesses were hemorrhaging jobs in the first quarter of 2009 when the recession was cutting deep into the economy.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, companies with 1-4 employees lost 140,000 jobs in that period; firms with 10-19 employees shed 220,000 jobs. (That’s the most recent period covered by the data.)

Some of those jobs as well as new ones would normally be created in the coming year.

Coming out of the previous two recessions, companies in the two groups were responsible for net job gains relatively soon after the downturn had ended and picked up momentum as the recovery was established.

In the third quarter of 1993, the 1-4-employee group created about 120,000 jobs, while the 14-20-person group added 60,000. That may not seem like a lot, but the workforce was much smaller then.

Near the peak of the last economic recovery, the two groups were combining for more than 140,000 jobs a quarter.

Though data for the past three quarters isn’t available, people who follow small- and medium- sized business say anecdotal evidence from owners is compelling

“A lot of small, medium sized businesses are waiting to see what health care is going to mean, in terms of cost,” says John Challenger, of the outplacement firm Challenger, Grey and Christmas, “I think they’re also waiting and seeing on the estate tax. The other one I hear the most about is the union issue—the worry that there could be much higher labor costs, that might curtail hiring.”

Amid the massive uncertainty, there are levels of certainty.

It’s unclear, for instance, what health care will cost small businesses, which tend not to provide it to employees. There’s talk of some kind of exemption, but it’s not clear yet.

The cost for those providing insurance will go up—at least in the short term; fees for health insurers, medical devices and branded drugs, for instance, start to kick in 2011 and work their way into the broader cost chain.

On another front, the Obama administration has said it intends to introduce some 90 new workplace rules this year.

Two thousand and ten may also bring the approval of cap-and-trade legislation, which given the complex scientific and economic models involved, will create another long list of question marks.

Changes in tax law are almost a certainty, even if the specifics are still unclear. The estate tax, which—as part of the Bush tax cut plan—is zero in 2011, is expected to be raised in future years and that change may even be made retroactive.

Income taxes for the two highest tax brackets are expected to rise; the Obama administration at various times has said taxes will be increased on people earning 200,000 or $250,000.

“When people talk about who’s making above $200,000, it tends to pull in a lot of small business people,” says Mark Calabria of the Cato Institute, a former senior staffer on the Senate Banking Committee.

Budget-strapped states have already raised taxes or intend to do so.

Unlike the complex tax structure of global corporations, there are few or any loopholes.

“If you are talking about the entrepreneurial class, they run a small business, have a handful of employees and they just report that as regular income,” adds Bethune.

Less income, more expenses—it’s hardly a prescription for expansion, says experts.

Small- and medium-sized business owners are still recovering from the real estate collapse and the credit crunch; it is not uncommon for them to use real estate as collateral or credit lines to make payroll.

On top of that, like big business, they’re still waiting for a return in demand

“It may mean you take less investment chances,” says Challenger. In that context, jobs are looking might chancy.”

Over the next three months, 15 percent said they plan to reduce employment, while eight percent plan to create new jobs.” There’s your practical definition of ‘one step forward, two steps back.'”

Less income, more expenses—it’s hardly a prescription for expansion.”  There’s your expression of common sense that Democrats will never comprehend.

Now, you might well be dumber than stupid, and continue to blame Bush for the economic collapse rather than placing much of the blame squarely on Democrats where it belongs, but the fact remains: Republicans have been saying this from day 1.  And they were right, and Democrats are being proven to be 100% wrong.

Obama’s claims of “shovel-ready jobs” should be greeted by hysterical mocking laughter, if only the man’s utter failure wasn’t creating so much misery and suffering.

We find that that the country’s that ignored Obama’s government stimulus mindset have done far, far better than the countries that paid attention to the community organizer.

Obama says “green jobs” are the answer.  But Obama is an idiot.

When you take the “National debt road trip,” you’ll find Obama driving the debt like a drunken, raving maniac.

Obama and the Democrats have also lied about damn near everything.

And the result of the Obama administration – from his opening porkulus to the present moment – is that he has done everything imaginable to drive employment down and the employment rate up.

The simple fact of the matter is that Obama – not Bush, Obama – has now presided over more jobs lost than any president since 1940.

And all our failure-in-chief can do is change an already sick twisted joke of a “job counting” system related to his stimulus (the category of “saved” jobs had NEVER existed prior to Obama inventing it as a self-marketing ploy – and the lamestream media revealed that they were dishonest propagandists by allowing the bogus category to be used on their airwaves).  Obama has finally abandoned the continuous campaign of lies and incompetence used to calculate how many jobs he “created or saved,” only to now embrace an even WORSE standard: from now on, Obama will take credit for any job that got any stimulus money at all.

So if you had your job before the Obama stimulus, and you would have had your job AFTER the Obama stimulus, if the place you work for got any stimulus money, Obama will claim credit for your job.

I’m sick of this man’s demagoguery.  I’m sick of his Bush-blaming.  I’m sick of his self-serving excuses.  I’m sick of his idiotic lies.

And I’m utterly heartsick at the massive damage this clown is doing to our country.

I got into blogging due to the revelations about the “reverend” and “church” that Obama chose to join and associate himself with for 23 years.  I had never been particularly involved with politics up to that time.  But as I watched hateful statement after hateful statement emerging from Obama’s church and from Obama’s pastor – to the cheering of the vile congregation – I knew that Barack Hussein was an evil man who would destroy this country if he were elected president.

And a year after his misrule, every single thing I feared when I saw Obama’s pastor spout evil, hateful, racist, unAmerican, Marxist filth back in March of 2008 has come true in spades.

Obama Continues Rampant Dishonesty With Stimulus ‘Jobs ‘

November 11, 2009

Want to see how Obama “created or saved” all the jobs he’s claiming?  Here’s how:

In June, the federal government spent $1,047 in stimulus money to buy a rider mower from the Toro Company to cut the grass at the Fayetteville National Cemetery in Arkansas. Now, a report on the government’s stimulus Web site improbably claims that that single lawn mower sale helped save or create 50 jobs.

I bought a new watch the other day; that’s got to be good for at least ten jobs saved or created.

Do you seriously trust these people to run your healthcare?  Are you that idiotic?  I mean, dang.

A newspaper editorial just damns Obama’s dishonesty and deceit the way it deserves to be damned.

Note: I added the html links to the other newspaper articles.

Union-Tribune Editorial
Stimulus dishonesty
Job numbers keep proving to be exaggerated
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 12:43 a.m.

First it was The Associated Press refuting the Obama administration’s claims for jobs saved or created nationwide by February’s $787 billion economic stimulus measure. Then it was The Sacramento Bee refuting the claims that state agencies had made for California. Then it was the Chicago Tribune refuting the claims that state agencies had made for Illinois.

The errors were not of a minor or technical nature. They were egregious.

AP reported that “some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two, three, four or even more times.” The Bee reported that California State University said “the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees” – more than half its statewide work force. The Tribune reported that Illinois education officials grossly inflated job-saved numbers, sometimes saying school districts had saved more jobs than their total number of employees.

This is a scandal and should be treated as such. It’s not government as usual. Instead, it appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas.

With U.S. unemployment now topping 10 percent, the Obama administration is struggling more than ever to fashion credible counterarguments to the assertion made by this editorial page and many pundits and economists that the massive stimulus measure was a poorly thought-out pork fest that wouldn’t work. What’s the easiest way to defend the stimulus? Make up claims about its glorious results.

Politics also appears to be driving state agencies in their willingness to prop up this bogus narrative. It helps them make the case that they should get even more borrowed money from the federal government that they never will have to repay.

Such dishonesty should be completely unacceptable – especially at the federal level. We trust the Office of Management and Budget to provide honest figures on the size of the deficit and the national debt. We trust the Labor Department to provide honest statistics on unemployment and job gains and losses by sector. We trust the Commerce Department to provide honest numbers on monthly imports and exports and the gross domestic product. We trust the Environmental Protection Agency to provide an honest accounting of air and water pollution levels.

All of these statistics end up helping shape the public debate on the most crucial issues of the day. If these numbers can’t be trusted, we can’t have an honest debate. When it comes to the economic stimulus package, it sure looks like the Obama White House doesn’t want an honest debate. Instead, it is going to relentlessly push the very dubious claim that the stimulus was a huge success – no matter what.

We are struck yet again by the contrast between the hopeful and idealistic tone of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and the bare-knuckles Chicago-style politics of his White House. If this hardball approach goes beyond the usual arm-twisting to the routine twisting of government statistics for political purposes, that will be a grim day for America.

The first thing to do is congratulate the editorial board of the Union-Tribune for standing up for the truth.  That hasn’t happened a whole lot in the swooning, “thrill going up my leg” coverage of Obama.

Next, I’d like to begin by citing the complete paragraph that the Union-Tribune cites from AP:

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

Then I’ll provide the quote from the Sacramento Bee in its context, which makes it an even more damning indictment:

Up to one-fourth of the 110,000 jobs reported as saved by federal stimulus money in California probably never were in danger, a Bee review has found.

California State University officials reported late last week that they saved more jobs with stimulus money than the number of jobs saved in Texas – and in 44 other states.

In a required state report to the federal government, the university system said the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees.

That total represents more than half of CSU’s statewide work force.  However, university officials confirmed Thursday that half their workers were not going to be laid off without the stimulus dollars.

“This is not really a real number of people,” CSU spokeswoman Clara Potes-Fellow said. “It’s like a budget number.”

And then I’ll provide the context for the Chicago Tribune findings:

Gov. Patrick Quinn on Wednesday dispatched officials from a new accountability office to investigate errors in a state database detailing stimulus-funded school jobs promoted by the Obama administration, a day after the Tribune raised questions about the job numbers’ accuracy.

The officials have asked the Illinois State Board of Education to verify the number of jobs created and retained in school districts detailed in the report, said Ashley Cross, a spokeswoman for Quinn’s office. Any necessary adjustments will be incorporated into the next quarterly report on the federal stimulus, she said.

Matt Vanover, a spokesman for board of education, said the flawed database actually had been washed of some glaring errors before being included in the official tabulation, which claimed 14,330 school jobs in Illinois had either been saved or created thanks to $1.25 billion in federal funds.

But the Tribune found that the database claimed far more jobs had been saved in some local school districts than actually existed on district payrolls.

Which is to say that, as egregious as the errors were that the Tribune reported for this story, the school board spokesman said they had actually been much, much more egregious before the Tribune was able to get its hands on the actual data.

When the Union-Tribune editors say:

This is a scandal and should be treated as such. It’s not government as usual. Instead, it appears to reflect a decision to distort government data collection to support explicitly political agendas.

You should recognize that we are talking about historic levels of dishonesty that match this administrations’ historic levels of spending and historic levels of debt.

And when they point out that:

Politics also appears to be driving state agencies in their willingness to prop up this bogus narrative. It helps them make the case that they should get even more borrowed money from the federal government that they never will have to repay.

Such dishonesty should be completely unacceptableespecially at the federal level.

You should realize that – counter to the Obama administration’s and Democrat Party’s demagogic attacks against businesses such as our health insurance companies (which make only modest profits, contrary to the frankly evil attacks repeatedly made by the left) – there is no greater or more powerful or more dishonest “special interest” than big government.

If you’re opposed to special interest, then whatever the HELL you do, don’t let the federal government take over health care.

And this garbage of deceit and lies about jobs and the fact that Obama has done NOTHING to create more of them is going on all over the country.

The Boston Globe says, “Stimulus job boost in state exaggerated, review finds.”  And it is simply damning.

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

The Globe’s finding is based on the federal government’s just-released accounts of stimulus spending at the end of October. It lists the nearly $4 billion in stimulus awards made to an array of Massachusetts government agencies, universities, hospitals, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations, and notes how many jobs each created or saved.

But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.

One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’ Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.

In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually – subsidies for affordable housing, for example – was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.

“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. “It’s hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.’’

The federal stimulus report for Massachusetts has so many errors, missing data, or estimates instead of actual job counts that it may be impossible to accurately tally how many people have been employed by the massive infusion of federal money. Massachusetts is expected to receive an estimated $1 billion more in stimulus contracts, grants, and loans.

When Obama was elected, unemployment was at 6.6%.  He promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.  And now it’s 10.2%.
His plan completely failed.  His massive $3.27 trillion stimulus porkulus (according to what the CBO reported Obama’s stimulus would actually cost) did nothing more than create a bunch of pork projects and create a Democrat war chest of slush funds to buy the votes it needs.
Don’t believe me about the slush fund?

To get as far as the bill did so far, it appears the administration might have spread some money around. California Rep. Jim Costa was wavering but told a local newspaper last week that his vote could be contingent on getting some federal money for a new medical school in his district along with help for local hospitals.

When a constituent named Bob Smittcamp e-mailed him to complain about his vote for the House bill, the congressman explained he’d been offered the dollars he was looking for — $128 million in federal money.

“He responded to me by basically saying that he did not like many of the elements there were in the legislation. However, he was able to procure $128m for the University of California medical school in Merced,” Smittcamp told Fox News.

Democrats now have in excess of a trillion dollars in federal money to buy itself the votes it needs to impose the liberal agenda.Rather than actually fix the economy, all Obama has done is a) focus entirely on putting even more of the economy under government control through Obamacare rather than focus on creating jobs; b) make up a bunch of patent lies to make believe his policies are doing anything other than dismally failing; and c) keep blaming Bush for everything.It’s not working out, Obama.  YOU’RE not working out.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 520 other followers