Posts Tagged ‘unemployment’

My Final Say On Why Barack Obama Does NOT Deserve Reelection

November 5, 2012

Obama has added a fourth dimension to dishonesty.  They used to say, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  Now it’s “There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Obamanomics.”  Because Obama’s entire economic policy is a giant turd.  And while it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd if you’re idiot enough to touch it, Obama tells you it’s actually gold-plated.

The unemployment rate is HIGHER than it was when Obama took office.  It is HIGHER than it EVER WAS under George W. Bush.  But in spite of that reality, it somehow never stopped Obama from just demonizing Bush.  Obama has never taken personally responsibility for anything.

George Bush’s unemployment rate was 5.26% over eight years.  At this point near the very end of Obama’s failed first (and hopefully ONLY term), Obama has given us an average unemployment rate of over 9 percent (9.03%).

You’d think that a man who never came CLOSE to George Bush’s unemployment rate – and frankly a man who never WILL come close to Bush’s unemployment rate – wouldn’t talk so much smack about George Bush.  BUT THAT’S ALL OBAMA DOES.  And the reason that’s all he does is simply because it’s all he has: demagoguery and demonization and blame and Marxist class warfare.

I suppose I can understand why those monthly unemployment rates under Bush looked bad to Democrats.  Because people would expect them to get off their lazy little roach asses and get a damn job back then instead of Obama giving them food stamps for life.  Obama has increased food stamps by 53 percent under his presidency; and what the hell, if you go back to when Nancy Pelosi took over the House of Representatives and Harry Reid took over the US Senate in 2007, Democrats have increased food stamps by 70 percent.  And all you welfare parasites ought to really like that trend – at least until you’ve sucked more blood out of the increasingly few Americans who are actually producing anything and the country implodes and you starve because Obama trained you to be completely dependent sponges.  It will be bad for you then, but then again none of you have EVER been capable of thinking about tomorrow and actually taking steps to avoid catastrophe before, so why start now?  You don’t need a damn job; YOU’VE GOT OBAMA.

You also need to understand that Barack Obama has in no way, shape or form lowered the unemployment rate.  What he has done is massively increase the number of discouraged workers – who don’t count in the official unemployment rate calculations.

There’s a vital statistic called the “labor force participation rate.”  What is it?  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a job.  And that rate has plunged and plunged and plunged every single year of Obama’s presidency.  I’ve written about this: if you look at November of 2010, the labor participation rate under Obama was at a 25-year low (i.e., worse than it EVER was under Bush) at 64.5%.   The next year, 2011, the participation rate was at a 27-year low at 63.9%.  In May of this year, the participation rate was at 63.6% and was the worst in thirty years.  And at that point just a few months ago the labor participation rate for men was the lowest it had EVER been since they started keeping records in 1948.  By August of this year it declined yet again to 63.5% to the lowest level in thirty-one years.

When our unemployment rate drops precipitously because four discouraged workers give up ever getting a job under this failed presidency for every one who actually gets a job, you need a new president.

If we applied the labor force participation rate that George Bush handed off to Obama, the unemployment rate would be well over 10 percent.

And what about the businesses that would be creating jobs if it weren’t for the fact that a turd is sitting in the White House where a president ought to be?

What is true of the labor force participation is also true of business start ups in America under Obama.  Two years ago – and this being during the so-called Obama “recovery,” the number of U.S. business start-ups and dropped 24% – and how the hell does that happen in a “recovery” when you’re supposedly coming out of a recession that you blame Bush for?  Last year the number of business start-ups had plunged to a 25 year low - which was THE LOWEST level ever measured since the statistic began to be tracked in 1986.  Now under Obama’s utterly failed leadership and under his Marxist class warfare, the number of business start-ups is at a 30 year low.

Obama isn’t adding anywhere NEAR enough jobs to keep up with the 10 million people who have joined the workforce by virtue of becoming adults during his presidency.

I don’t understand.  Why do so many Democrats want America to weaken, to fail and to implode?  What is it about this country that so many people call “The Great Satan” that you Democrats despise so much?

You can look at America’s global competitiveness under Obama and see the same failure.  Last year, America dropped to fifth place.  This year, thanks to Obama’s leadership, America has plunged to seventh place in global competitiveness.  And in fact we have dropped down the ladder under Obama every single year of his failed presidency in global competitiveness.

And wait, I’m not done, because the United States has now also plunged in a manner described as “unprecedented” to TWELFTH place in prosperity under Obama.

We were #1 in the world in global competitiveness when George Bush handed the presidency to Barack Obama.

If you vote Democrat, I guess you think our decline is good.  You clearly do, because you thought that our being number one in the world under George W. Bush was somehow bad.  You want America to drop to twelfth place, to twentieth place, to fiftieth place.  Why?  What is morally and psychologically wrong with you?

And don’t think for a second that Democrats want more money in the pockets of working people.  Because the median household income has dropped $4,520 since that evil day that President Obama took officeBetting on Obama cost you 8.2% of the average American’s income.  That’s how much the average American has basically lost every year as a result of their lousy bet on Obama.  I don’t understand: why on earth do you want more of that?  Or maybe I should be asking you why on earth you want less and less money and freedom as long as you can have more Obama?

Democrats are NOT people who want more money in working people’s’ pockets; they’re bitter, hateful people who want LESS money in other people’s’ pockets; they’re Marxists who want more and more and more money in the government’s pocket instead.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy.  You first need to understand that Obama has added $6 trillion to the debt in only four years after demonizing George Bush for adding over $4 trillion over eight years.  If Obama is reelected, he is on pace to TRIPLE the George Bush debt that he demagogued.  And this from a president who promised he’d cut spending and would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but was upbraided by Tom Brokaw who said Obama would have to answer for his “out of control” $1.1 trillion deficit “that happened on his watch.”  And let’s not even think about the fact that our REAL debt that will ultimately bankrupt us all is the $222 trillion we owe when we consider the unsustainable Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid debt that we have to pay.

On the foreign policy front, let me just sum it up this way: our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have massively lost confidence in Obama as commander-in-chief.  Obama paraded himself around as the president who got bin Laden (never mind that he depended enormously on the waterboarding-obtained intelligence that he demonized).  And Obama claimed that in getting bin Laden he had fatally wounded al Qaeda and that the war on terrorism was basically over.  And as a result Ambassador Chris Stevens was completely safe in Benghazi, Libya, and Obama could therefore cut his security even though the ambassador who was just about to be murdered in an al Qaeda terrorist attack was begging for MORE security.  The fact that Obama was utterly and completely wrong about his core foreign policy ought to matter.  But instead Obama has lied and then lied again when confronted with past lies such that the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi won’t hurt him until after the election is already over.  Which is exactly how a profoundly unworthy commander-in-chief would think.

Meanwhile, Obama’s cockroach media is working overtime to censor the news about this story so that Obama’s gamble will work.

Speaking of war zones, how about that Hurricane Sandy devastation?  Much of the country is lining up in gas lines that are taking as long as seven hours to get through.  Whole regions are devastated and thousands of victims have received absolutely no help at ALLAnger is beginning to increasingly erupt over the disastrous relief effortIt’s always amazing to watch as the same media that pounded George Bush day after day over Katrina refuse to cover the suffering Obama is responsible for after Hurricane Sandy.  Obama got his photo op pretending to be “commander-in-chief” and now he can leave victims out in the cold.  Literally.

Oh, did I mention “gas”?  How about them prices?  Obama has made gasoline TWICE as expensive as it was when he took office.

Obama summed it up pretty well: Democrats are people who vote with a heart full of revenge; Mitt Romney is a man who says that Republicans vote because of love of country.

And that bit of deceit is frankly stunning: why the hell is Obama demanding that people take revenge on Mitt Romney WHEN IT WAS INSTEAD BARACK OBAMA WHO HAS IMPLODED AMERICA YEAR AFTER YEAR OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS???  Just what did Mitt Romney do that Obama thinks people should take revenge on him for???  Why the hell doesn’t Obama realize that HE’S the man the American people need to take their revenge on, if they take revenge out on anyone at all???  Why is it that Barack Obama is that pathologically incapable of accepting any kind of responsibility at all???

Middle Class Wages Are Going DOWN Under Obama, Gas Prices Are Going UP And The Real Jobless Rate Is More Like 19 Percent

October 3, 2012

Hey, don’t forget to get out there and vote for Obama so you can have more of this:

September 7, 2012, 7:38 p.m. ET.
Those Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look
Still above 8%—and closer to 19% in a truer accounting. Here’s a plan for improvement.
By MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

Don’t be fooled by the headline unemployment number of 8.1% announced on Friday. The reason the number dropped to 8.1% from 8.3% in July was not because more jobs were created, but because more people quit looking for work.

The number for August reflects only people who have actively applied for a job in the past four weeks, either by interview or by filling an application form. But when the average period of unemployment is nearly 40 weeks, it is unrealistic to expect everyone who needs a job to keep seeking work consistently for months on end. You don’t have to be lazy to recoil from the heartbreaking futility of knocking, week after week, on closed doors.

How many people are out of work but not counted as unemployed because they hadn’t sought work in the past four weeks? Eight million. This is the sort of distressing number that turns up when you look beyond the headline number.

Here’s another one: 96,000—that’s how many new jobs were added last month, well short of the anemic 125,000 predicted by analysts, and dramatically less than the (still paltry) 139,000 the economy had been averaging in 2012.

The alarming numbers proliferate the deeper you look: 40.7% of the people counted as unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more—that’s 5.2 million “long-term” unemployed. Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even though the population since then has grown by 31 million.

We are still almost five million payrolls shy of where we were at the end of 2007, when the recession began. Think about that when you hear the Obama administration’s talk of an economic recovery.

The key indicator of our employment health, in all the statistics, is what the government calls U-6. This is the number who have applied for work in the past six months and includes people who are involuntary part-time workers—government-speak for those individuals whose jobs have been cut back to two or three days a week.

They are working part-time only because they’ve been unable to find full-time work. This involuntary army of what’s called “underutilized labor” has been hovering for months at about 15% of the workforce. Include the eight million who have simply given up looking, and the real unemployment rate is closer to 19%.

In short, the president’s ill-designed stimulus program was a failure. For all our other national concerns, and the red herrings that typically swim in electoral waters, American voters refuse to be distracted from the No. 1 issue: the economy. And even many of those who have jobs are hurting, because annual wage increases have dropped to an average of 1.6%, the lowest in the past 30 years. Adjusting for inflation, wages are contracting.

The best single indicator of how confident workers are about their jobs is reflected in how they cling to them. The so-called quit rate has sagged to the lowest in years.

Older Americans can’t afford to quit. Ironically, since the recession began, employment in the age group of 55 and older is up 3.9 million, even as total employment is down by five million. These citizens hope to retire with dignity, but they feel the need to bolster savings as a salve for the stomach-churning decline in their net worth, 75% of which has come from the fall in the value of their home equity.

The baby-boomer population postponing its exit from the workforce in a recession creates a huge bottleneck that blocks youth employment. Displaced young workers now face double-digit unemployment and more life at home with their parents.

Many young couples decide that they can’t afford to start a family, and as a consequence the birthrate has just hit a 25-year low of 1.87%. Nor are young workers’ prospects very good. Layoff announcements have risen from year-ago levels and hiring plans have dropped sharply. People are not going to swallow talk of recovery until hiring is occurring at a pace to bring at least 300,000 more hires per month than the economy has been averaging for the past two years.

Furthermore, the jobs that are available are mostly not good ones. More than 40% of the new private-sector jobs are in low-paying categories such as health care, leisure activities, bars and restaurants.

We are experiencing, in effect, a modern-day depression. Consider two indicators: First, food stamps: More than 45 million Americans are in the program! An almost incredible record. It’s 15% of the population compared with the 7.9% participation from 1970-2000. Food-stamp enrollment has been rising at a rate of 400,000 per month over the past four years.

Second, Social Security disability—another record. More than 11 million Americans are collecting federal disability checks. Half of these beneficiaries have signed on since President Obama took office more than three years ago.

These dependent millions are the invisible counterparts of the soup kitchens and bread lines of the 1930s, invisible because they get their checks in the mail. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that millions of people who had good private-sector jobs now have to rely on welfare for life support.

This shameful situation, intolerable for a nation as wealthy as the United States, is not going to go away on Nov. 7. No matter who wins, the next president will betray the country if he doesn’t swiftly fashion policies to address the specific needs of the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed.

Five actions are critical:

1. Find the money to spur an expansion of public and private training programs with proven track records.

2. Increase access to financing for small businesses and thus expand entrepreneurial opportunities.

3. Lower government hurdles to the formation of new businesses.

4. Explore special subsidies for private employers who hire the long-term unemployed.

5. Get serious about the long decay in public works and infrastructure, which poses a dramatic national threat. Infrastructure projects should be tolled so that the users ultimately pay for them.

It’s zero hour. Policy makers need to understand that the most important family program, the most important social program and the most important economic program in America all go by the same name: jobs.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

A version of this article appeared September 8, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Those Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look.

We’re a slight breeze away from the entire house of cards collapsing America into a depression that will make the one that started in 1929 look like a walk on a sunny beach.

Obama Says Economy A Lot Worse Than He Thought When He Took Office. Which Is To Say He’s Incompetent And Clueless And Shouldn’t Be Trusted Now.

October 3, 2012

That’s a central part of Obama’s case now.

Back then, he said that if his $862 billion stimulus (which is actually a $3.27 trillion boondoggle) was passed, unemployment would never exceed 8 percent and we’d have 5.4 percent unemployment by now.  It became obvious very quickly even to he lefties at CBS News that the Obama administration had made completely bogus claims.  Which is a polite way of saying they either completely lied out of their asses or that they were incompetent beyond belief.  Obama also said back then that he had three years to fix the economy and he wouldn’t deserve to be reelected and his presidency would therefore be a one-term proposition if he couldn’t get it done.

Of course, history now records that Obama didn’t actually make the economy better; he simply changed his bullcrap to a slightly different brand of bullcrap in the hopes you won’t be able to smell the bullcrap.

Four years of bogus promises later, Obama is now saying that the economy was far worse than he thought it was and of course you therefore can’t hold him responsible for what he said back then.  Let’s put aside that when Obama took office, he kept saying this was the worst situation since the Great Depression, which would imply he understood it was pretty much REALLY, REALLY BAD given the obvious rhetorical question, “And what the hell is worse than the Great Depression?”  Let’s also put aside the fact that the economy would have come ROARING back if an incompetent bureaucrat hadn’t kept throwing monkey wrenches into it while claiming he was fixing it.

Okay.  So how are we going to be able to EVER hold him responsible?  I mean, he’s saying he’s made the economy better now and he’s on the right track to fix everything.  Maybe he’s just as wrong as he was back then when he was also wrong, wrong, wrong.  Obama by his own lame excuse didn’t know jack squat back then and he still doesn’t know jack squat now.  So the world’s squirmiest political weasel says the only thing that a squirmy political weasel can say now that four years of his policies have failed: namely that it wasn’t his policies that failed; it was the rest of the world around him.  So how can you hold a liberal president responsible for not understanding the real world???

We just found out that our spending is actually escalating.

October 2, 2012
Congratulations Barry: 2012 budget deficit exceeds 2011 shortfall
Rick Moran

It  was close. A lot of us didn’t think he could do it. But we should have realized by now that when it comes to spending money we don’t have, Barrack H. Obama is the  champion.

CNS  News:

According to the U.S.  Treasury, the debt of the U.S.  government climbed by a total of $1,275,901,078,828.74 in fiscal 2012, which  ended yesterday.

That means  the federal government borrowed approximately an  additional $10,855  for each household in the United States just over the  past twelve  months.

The  total debt of the United States now equals approximately $136,690 per  household.

In  fiscal 2011, the debt increased by about $10,454 per household–$401  less than the $10,855 per household increase of 2012.

The  $1.2758 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2012 was about  $47.18  billion more than the $1.2287 trillion that the debt increased  in fiscal  2011.

The  federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30.

At  the close of business on Sept. 30, 2011, the total debt of the  U.S. government  was $14,790,340,328,557.15, according to the Treasury.  At the close of business  on Sept. 28, the last business day of fiscal  2012, it was  $16,066,241,407,385.89

That  meant the debt increased in fiscal 2012 by  $1,275,901,078,828.74.

At  the close of business on Sept. 30, 2010, the debt had stood at   $13,561,623,030,891.79.  Over the course of fiscal 2011, it increased by   $1,228,717,297,665.36 before closing at 14,790,340,328,557.15 on Sept.  30,  2011.

The  fiscal 2012 increase of $1,275,901,078,828.74 exceeded the fiscal 2011 increase  $1,228,717,297,665.36 by $47,183,781,163.38

Excuse  me, math is not one of my strong subjects but shouldn’t the budget deficit be,  like, you know, going down every year instead of going  up?

Sorry  – my bad. For a minute, I thought we were living in an alternate reality where  people actually took things like trillion dollar deficits seriously. I will now  return to La-La Land and make happy faces because President Obama has the  situation well in hand.

Obama – the man who demonized George Bush for adding $4 trillion in debt over eight years – has run up $6 trillion in four.  A full third of the entire US debt accumulated over the nation’s entire history has come under Obama’s presidency.

We’re like Europe now for the first time in American history under Obama: our economy is smaller than our debt and while our economy keeps shrinking because of the fool-in-chief’s stupid policies, our debt keeps heading straight up into space like a rocket.

We’re paying $9 billion a damn WEEK in interest servicing our debt – and most of that is going to China.  Just imagine that: if you had just one lousy day’s worth of America’s INTEREST payment, you’d be a billionaire and one of the richest people on the planet.  And even Obama’s own budget states that the interest on the national debt is about to quadruple.

CNN had an interesting article on how Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a deadbeat debtor nation way back in late 2009 after Obama’s spending rampage:

$4.8 trillion – Interest on U.S. debt
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writerDecember 20, 2009: 7:37 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Here’s a new way to think about the U.S. government’s epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.

More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.

If that’s hard to grasp, here’s another way to look at why that’s a problem.

In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due – $533 billion – is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year, said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.

[…]

Let’s go over Obama’s spending in 2009: there was the $862 billion stimulus (which again will ultimately cost America $3.27 TRILLION); there was the $410 billion Omnibus he passed a couple of months later; there was the $79 billion GM auto bailout which broke contract law and robbed the guaranteed secured bondholders to give the farm to Obama’s union allies; oh, and there was the $350 billion in TARP money that Obama voted for and requested that Bush leave for him that he spent.  And of course Obama spent that entire year fighting to pass his $2.6 trillion ObamaCare debacle that he promised would cut insurance premiums by $2,500 a year but instead raised them by $3,000 a year.

The stimulus that was sold on the promise of “shovel-ready jobs” ended up, even in Obama’s own words, being “not as shovel-ready as we thought” as it completely and utterly failed to do anything but bankrupt America and transform this nation into debt-slaves.

Obama has been wrong about absolutely everything he ever said.  Now he’s implicitly arguing, “I was wrong about the lies I told you back then, but why don’t you trust my current lies now?”

The Secret Of The Dishonest Unemployment Report Revealed – 4 Million Jobs DESTROYED Under Obama And Worst Labor Participation in 31 Years

September 24, 2012

I’ve written about the disastrous hollowing-out and destruction of the American economy by the Job-Destroyer-in-Chief before.  It’s good to see it being echoed by excellent conservative sites such as American Thinker and even BETTER to see it taken up by Reuters:

September 23, 2012
The ‘hidden’ unemployed
Rick Moran

Every month when the jobless numbers come out, Obama critics take pains to point out that the “official” number is very misleading.

One of the major reasons is that the published unemployment rate does not include such “hidden” workers as those working part time who would like to work full time, and those who have given up looking for work.

Reuters has a good piece today on the latter:

Economists, analyzing government data, estimate about 4 million fewer people are in the labor force than in December 2007, primarily due to a lack of jobs rather than the normal aging of America’s population. The size of the shift underscores the severity of the jobs crisis.

If all those so-called discouraged jobseekers had remained in the labor force, August’s jobless rate of 8.1 percent would have been 10.5 percent.

The jobs crisis spurred the Federal Reserve last week to launch a new bond-buying program and promise to keep it running until the labor market improves. It also poses a challenge to President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

The labor force participation rate, or the proportion of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one has fallen by an unprecedented 2.5 percentage points since December 2007, slumping to a 31-year low of 63.5 percent.

“We never had a drop like that before in other recessions. The economy is worse off than people realize when people just look at the unemployment rate,” said Keith Hall, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia.

The participation rate would be expected to hold pretty much steady if the economy was growing at a normal pace. Only about a third of the drop in the participation rate is believed to be the result of the aging U.S. population.

The economy lost 8.7 million jobs in the 2007-09 recession and has so far recouped a little more than half of them.

Economists say jobs growth of around 125,000 per month is normally needed just to hold the jobless rate steady.

Given the likelihood that Americans will flood back into the labor market when the recovery gains traction, a pace twice that strong would be needed over a sustained period to make progress reducing the unemployment rate.

Last month, employers created just 96,000 jobs.

Some areas of the country are better off than others jobs-wise, but that last factoid from Reuters should give us pause. There have only been two months during the Obama administration that have seen more than 250,000 jobs created. If there ever is anything like a normal recovery, the real unemployment rate will skyrocket once the discouraged workers are counted again by the BLS.

No one knows the future but God.  That said, it is my belief that if Obama is reelected, you will see a widespread dive in joblessness as small businesses that have just been hanging on hoping the turd would be voted out variously come to the conclusion, “The hell with it.”

Harvard Professor Provides Systematic And Scathing Take Down Of Obama’s Entire Presidency: Obama’s Gotta Go

August 21, 2012

The following isn’t a takedown of Obama for merely failing to turn the economy around; it is a scathing indictment of Obama’s entire premise for his 2008 entire campaign and failed presidency:

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go
Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

Newsweek
 

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

COVER STORY: Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope bit.ly/QQLouG

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

Niall Ferguson discusses Obama’s broken promises on ‘Face the Nation.’  [See site for video]

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

Newsweek’s executive editor, Justine Rosenthal, tells the story behind Ferguson’s cover story.  [See site for video]

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.

There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

Jobs Graphic
 

On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.

According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone … I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.

It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.

obama-has-to-go-FE01-main
Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.

Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

GDP Graphic
 

Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another … The United States does not seek to contain China … On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.

His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum … I’ve come here … to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based … upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”

Obama
Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.

In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.

“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

Deficit Graphic
 

Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

Want to discuss this week’s cover story? Use the hashtag –just as it appears on the cover.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Niall Ferguson is a professor of history at Harvard University. He is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Latest book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, has just been published by Penguin Press.

This article is a complete ass-kicking of Obama.  Which is why the doctrinaire ideologue left immediately came so completely unglued by it.

Failed President Obama Continues Campaign Lies While Unemployment Rate INCREASES In 44 Out Of 50 States (That’s A Ninety Percent ‘You Suck Rate,’ Obama)!

August 20, 2012

“When I grew up a ’60’ on a test was an ‘F’ for “fail.”  Obama’s getting ninety percent of the economy wrong isn’t just a failure, it is the mother of all failures; it is failure on steroids; it is catastrophic, world-class, historic failure.

Unemployment rate rises in 44 states
By Bernie Becker – 08/17/12 12:59 PM ET

Close to 90 percent of states saw their unemployment rates rise in July, a potentially worrisome development for President Obama’s reelection campaign.

The Labor Department reported Friday that 44 states in all saw their jobless rate go up, with four states seeing no change at all. Only Idaho and Rhode Island — along with Washington, D.C. — saw their rates drop last month.

The economy added 163,000 jobs in July, the Labor Department said earlier this month, a figure that beat expectations and outpaced the sluggish job growth of the previous three months.

But Republicans also latched on to the fact that the national unemployment rate ticked back up, from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent.

The strength of the job market and the economy at large is still expected to play a key role in November’s match-up between Obama and the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

If Obama doesn’t lose this election in a total blowout, it is all you need to know to understand how morally and rationally sick this nation has become.

The Jeremiah Wright “No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God DAMN America!” presidency is moving along splendidly.  If Obama is re-elected, cue Antichrist, cue the Mark of the Beast, cue Armageddon – because hell is surely coming.

Obama Energy Solution: We Can Eat America’s Dogs And Then Drive Windmill Cars Powered By Our Flatulence

August 15, 2012

Obama decided to make his attack on Mitt Romney’s wind energy policy personal:

Obama Brings Back Dog-on-Roof Issue When Criticizing Romney
By Fred Lucas
August 14, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – While expressing his support for the wind industry, President Barack Obama took a veiled shot at his Republican opponent Mitt Romney for transporting his dog on the roof of his car almost 30 years ago in 1983, saying, “I know he’s had other things on his car.”

“During a speech a few months ago, Governor Romney even described his energy policy this way, I’m quoting here, ‘You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.’ That’s what he said about wind power. ‘You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it,’” Obama told an audience in Oskaloosa, Iowa at the Nelson Pioneer Farm & Museum.

Obama went on to make an apparent reference to news stories concerning the widely reported 1983 vacation by the Romney family in which the family’s Irish sitter Seamus was placed in a carrier mounted to the rooftop for a 12-hour trip, with three stops. The Boston Globe first reported the matter in 2007.

“Now I don’t know if he’s actually tried that,” Obama said of Romney attaching a windmill to the car. “I know he’s had other things on his car. But, if he wants to learn something about wind, all he’s got to do is pay attention to what you’ve been doing here in Iowa.”

Obama also said, “The wind industry now supports 7,000 jobs here in Iowa, 75,000 jobs across the country. These jobs aren’t a fad. These are good jobs and they’re a source of pride we need to fight for.”

At a Romney campaign rally in Zanesville, Ohio on March 5, Romney criticized Obama on energy.

“What is his energy policy? It’s apparently to make it hard to get coal out of the ground with more regulations, makes it harder to get the gas out of the ground,” Romney said. “And as a result, while he’s happy with wind and solar – we all like wind and solar – but you can’t drive a car with a windmill on it. My plan is that we’re finally going to get America energy secure by taking advantage of our coal, our oil, our gas, and bringing in that Keystone pipeline from Canada.”

In April, dogs became more of an issue when additional news stories pointed out that in Obama’s autobiography, Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama discloses that he once ate dog meat as a child in Indonesia. Obama even joked about it at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner.

It’s frankly amazing that this cheap-shot artist Chicago thug is actually our president.

What’s good for the dog-eater ought to be good for the guy who once put his doggy carrier on the roof of his car, however.

You want to bring up Romney’s dog (who LIVED, by the way) in your attack on his energy policy?

Well, America, EAT your damn dog like Barry Hussein did and stick a propeller out of your butt to take advantage of your “natural gas.”

For the record, my own dog has repeatedly testified that she would rather be on Mitt Romney’s roof than digesting inside Barack Obama’s gut.  My dog also says that she would cause as much gastrointestinal distress to our first dog-eating president in history if he ate her – such that he’d get arrested for uncontrollable speeding in his windmill fartmobile.  And my dog says to vote for the guy who DIDN’T eat a dog.

And for the record, the green energy boondoggle that Obama keeps demanding for America hasn’t worked particularly well for Spain - a country that now “enjoys” 25% unemployment with young adults “enjoying” 53% unemployment.  The thing is, of course, that stupid rots the brain and goes into the bones.  And so this election is the harbinger for whether America wants to “enjoy” a Spain-style economy – and remember, Spain was once the mightiest nation on the planet, too – or whether we want to actually quit digging our hole deeper and start climbing out of it with Mitt Romney.

One way or another, if Obama gets re-elected, we’ll be doing something crazy to live in a world where Obama criminalized oil.  Will it be Obama’s windmill fartmobile or a Fred Flintstone car, I don’t know.  But it won’t be much longer before whatever it is – joke though it may be – won’t be funny.

Nancy Pelosi has some exciting models out.

Liberals Keep Blaming Bush And Keep Sounding More and More Like DUMBASSES

July 30, 2012

I get comments like this one all the time:

Dumbass, why dont you consider the MASSIVE drop in revenues due to the economic cliff the US fell off due to Bush’s policys. The downslide started mid 2007, sorry new president takes the helm in jan. 2009! Ship was sinking, obama just trying to bail out the water with resistance from all Republicans ! I hope gets on so we can blame everything on him…

So what can I say to such a brilliant mind?  Plenty:

Five things:

1) When George Bush took office, we had suffered the DotCom bubble collapse and Bush inherited a terrible recession (a couple of facts: America lost $7.1 trillion in wealth and the Nasdaq valuation lost 78% of its value). On top of that, America suffered the 9/11 attack because Bill Clinton had annihilated the military and intelligence budgets and capabilities in order to brag he “balanced the budget.” The 9/11 attack created an even DEEPER recession because the American people were afraid to travel to vacation or do business for a long time afterward. Bush started out in a hell hole.  But did you defend Bush, Charles? No, because you’re a demon-possessed cockroach hypocrite and you will only see the world as a leftwing ideologue.  It’s like the gas price spike: when Bush was president, the rise in prices were all Bush’s fault because Bush was president:

But now Obama’s the president and the fact that gas prices have averaged FAR more during Obama’s presidency (gas prices have averaged $3.25 under Obama versus only $2.33 under Bush) isn’t Obama’s fault at all.  The same thing is true of our spending and debt and the same damn thing is true of liberal hoity-toity issues like Gitmo.  At some point every liberal skull will explode from trying to contain all the contradictions.

I wrote an article right after the election that pretty much sums up my views: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”  It comes down to this: by your own measure shall ye be measured.  You don’t get to attack Bush and Republicans for eight years by going after Bush like rabid pit bulls attacking bloody meat and then get sanctimonious with us.  Dumbass.  Especially when by any measure: GDP growth, jobs, household wealth, deficits, spending, debt, consumer confidence, or any other measure, the economy did FAR better during the eight years of Bush than it EVER has under Obama.

As we speak, only 14% of Americans think their children will be better off than they were, versus 65% who think their children will be worse off.  That is the lowest it has EVER been.  Why is it Bush’s fault that in the fourth year of Obama Americans overwhelmingly believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction under Obama’s policies???  Even if Bush did everything terrible; shouldn’t Obama have been able to improve from terrible???  But he hasn’t; he’s made “terrible” MORE terrible.

2) Do you know what sane people do (my bad – of COURSE you don’t know what sane people do!) if they have less revenue? THEY SPEND LESS, YOU DUMBASS. But somehow your messiah never got the sanity memo so instead of spending less he imposed spending after spending measure and imposed levels of bureaucrats and regulators that this nation has never seen. You people are like the millionaire’s son who pisses away his inheritance and then says, “Well, it’s not like that means I’ve got to spend less or anything; I’m ENTITLED to spend more. I think I’ll go buy a Ferrari and crash it after a drunken party  And then I’ll celebrate ‘my recovery’ by buying another Ferrari.”

Even if everything you said was true – and it’s not – we should be spending LESS.  But what is your messiah doing?  He’s spending three times more and blaming Bush.  That is morally and rationally insane.

Liberals have a GSA-view of the universe.  But as Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”

3) Then there’s the fact that Democrats were nearly TOTALLY to blame for imposing all of the idiotic conditions that led to your “Massive drop in revenues.” “Bush’s policies?” Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it collapsed, you abject dumbass. Bush began trying back in 2003, and even the New York Slimes records that conservative economists were predicting back in 1999 that these stupid and immoral Democrat policies would explode the economy:

New York Times, Sep 30, 1999: “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. […]

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Barney Frank stated:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Just before the bankruptcy and collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008, Barney Frank said THIS:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

Dumbass, IT IS A DOCUMENTED FACT OF HISTORY THAT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC COLLAPSED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2008 BEFORE ANY OTHER PRIVATE SECTOR PLAYER. Merill Lynch and Lehmen Brothers went down AFTER the GSEs and BECAUSE they suddenly found themselves holding billions of dollars in worthless Fannie and Freddie mortgage backed securities.  That was because Fannie and Freddie had bundled thousands mortgages together into their securities such that there was no way to separate the toxic debt from the good debt.  The entire system collapsed because the entire mortgage financial system suddenly became “toxic” due to that inability of the market to distinguish good debt and risk from toxic debt and risk.  ONLY Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to bundle those mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private sector. THAT was what caused the housing mortgage collapse that led to our 2008 economic implosion.  At the time of their collapse, the GSEs controlled 70% of all new home purchases.  It was that supermassive black hole of Democrat stupidity and depravity that imploded America in 2008.

I’ve preserved all of that and more here.

If the above isn’t bad enough, Obama has decided after demagoguing the crisis his party started in 2008 that 2008 never really even happened: he’s going right back to the policies that blew up the housing mortgage market in the first place.

If that isn’t enough, consider that between Democrat-imposed Social Security boondoggle and the Medicare and Medicaid boondoggles, the REAL national debt is well over $211 TRILLIONOur real yearly debt under Obama is nearly $6 trillion in the red every single year until America implodes and dies when our credit rating goes down again and our interest rates skyrocket.  And when you add to that the unfunded pension liabilities of liberal states like California and Illinois, we are well and truly screwed with Democrats being virtually entirely responsible for every penny of our unpayable and unsustainable debt that will necessarily bankrupt and kill America.  And all of this government takeover has been imposed in the name of helping the poor when history proves it has done the exact opposite.

And you’re going to blame Bush, you lunatic?

So you can take your “fell off due to Bush’s policies” and stuff them right up your idiot pie hole. Bush’s policies gave us an average 5.26% unemployment rate. When your messiah lives up to his lies come back and talk to me.

4) But let’s consider that in conservative states like Texas and Nebraska and North Dakota, the economies are surging and people from liberal states are moving to red states in DROVES to get jobs they won’t ever be able to get from retards like Democrats. These red states and several other red states have balanced their budgets. So why can’t Obama balance his damn budget instead of giving us four consecutive years of over a trillion in deficit for the first time in the entire history of the entire human race???

5) Obama told the American people that his policies would result in 5.6% unemployment by now and there would therefore be millions of Americans paying lots and lots of taxes. Obama promised us his policies would generate 4.3 percent GDP growth. Where was that promised economic recovery that would have obliterated the recession, you dumbass? You wouldn’t need to be making your dumbass excuses now if your messiah hadn’t lied to the American people.  Now Obama has to rely on pure crap to sell his lies, just like you. But instead your antichrist messiah has given us the worst labor participation rate since Jimmy Carter broke America and Ronald Reagan had to put it back together again. And if you compare Obama’s policies to Reagan’s policies you can understand why Reagan GREW the economy after everything went to hell and Obama is just going from bad to worse.  So on your very “dumbass” view YOUR messiah is a “dumbass.”  Either that, or it’s now your view that Obama LIED when he said he had a solution and he LIED when he projected that his policies would turn the economy around.  I guess what you’re saying is that it’s really “Bush’s fault” that Obama is a lying fool.

June Jobs Report: Disgraceful Job Numbers For A Completely Failed President

July 6, 2012

80,000 jobs.  Do you know how pathetic that is?  We need an absolute minimum of 125,000 jobs a month (in light of our 313 million citizens it’s more like 200,000) just to begin to keep up with population growth.  And when you consider Obama’s godawful labor participation rate and the number of working-age Americans who have just been cast out during the cancer of this presidency, it is an abject disgrace.

But here’s the thing: you listen to Obama campaign and you’d think the last four years didn’t happen.  He’s mouthing the same garbage that he was blathering when he was running for president in 2008.  Nothing bad has happened (“the private sector’s doing fine”) or it’s anybody and anything else’s fault but the man who sits behind “the buck stops here” desk in the Oval Office.

Barack Obama is the most narcissistic, the most ignorant, the most naive and the most demagogic president America has ever seen.  Bar none.

Obama told us that the answer to the bad economy was a government takeover of the private economy via his stimulus.  He took office when unemployment was 7.6 percent.  If his stimulus passed, he promised, unemployment would never get to 8 percent – and in fact by this time (July 2012) unemployment would be 5.5 percent.  History proves that Obama was completely wrong and has absolutely no idea whatsoever how to get an economy moving.  All he can do is count on people to believe the same lies he’s been making for years and idiotic things.

One of the idiotic things you’ve got to believe is a flip side of Obama’s “I’m the president who got bin Laden” argument.  On this view, had George Bush had another term or even two more terms, he never would have been able to get bin Laden.  And of course Bush couldn’t have got bin Laden because he’s not Obama, and only Obama could have ever got bin Laden.  It doesn’t matter if the military loved Bush far more than Obama, or that the esprit of the CIA was far, FAR higher under Bush; only Obama could possibly have got bin Laden.  End of discussion.  It wasn’t just a matter of time as Bush said it would be; it was Obama personally nailing bin Laden with his sheer magnificent wonderfulness.

If you apply this same mindset to Bush and the economy, we had a terrible economic hit (actually caused by liberals who recklessly ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground, but that’s another story) and as Bush left office we were lost 700,000 jobs in just one month.  And the religious doctrine that all Democrats must believe as an article of their faith in messiah Obama is that if Bush were still president today, we would have continued to lose 700,000 jobs every single month and unemployment would be 30 percent today.  And of course Obama’s otherwise godawful performance now looks GREAT if you consider the 30 percent unemployment that we would of course had had under George Bush.  Never mind facts like no recession has ever lasted forever; and never mind that there have only been TWO times when America didn’t come roaring back from a bad recession and both occurred under socialist presidents (Obama and FDR).  The average recession lasts 11 months.  And historically we get very strong recoveries out of recessions.  But if Bush were still president it would have lasted forever and ever and ever.  And only messiah Obama can possibly deliver us.  Because Mitt Romney is the devil.  And do you want a rich, evil, vulture capitalist vampire monster to be your president when you could have more Obama instead???  Hint: if you say “yes” you’re clearly a racist.

So we listen to Democrats demonize “the failed Republican policies” that got us into this terrible mess and we believe their narrative that of course Obama must never be blamed for anything negative but must be given total credit for anything positive.  We are taught to not remember that George W. Bush – who himself inherited a terrible recession with the DotCom bubble burst that happened on Clinton’s watch and which wiped out $7.1 trillion in American wealth - ended his presidency with a 5.26 percent overall unemployment rate.

5.26 percent.  That’s not bad for a president who inherited the DotCom bubble collapse which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and annihilated 78% of the Nasdaq Exchange valuation before we here hit on 9/11 due to Bill Clinton’s gutting the military and intelligence budgets while he emboldened Osama bin Laden into believing that America was a paper tiger.

If we extrapolate pure liberal demagoguery and simply utterly refuse to consider history, then Obama is the answer.  Otherwise this pathetic president truly and profoundly sucks.

So let’s let the messiah who has an average unemployment rate of 9.16 percent through June 2012 assure us that the president who had a 5.26% unemployment rate was terrible for jobs.  And we’ll believe him because this is God damn America and God damn America is under a spirit of delusion.

Yesterday (July 5) I had CNBC’s Larry Kudlow program on, and Kudlow had two economists representing a liberal (Dean Baker) and conservative (David Goldman) perspective.  Baker had an optimistic view, believing that the Labor Department release today would show that we created a lousy but-comparatively great 165,000 jobs in June; Goldman believed the report would be even worse than the economists’ consensus view of 125,000 jobs and we’d get only 100,000 jobs.  To make it even more interesting and show just how LOUSY liberals and liberalism are, Baker demagogued Goldman and accused him of merely ticking off “talking points” as compared to Baker who was of course examining the NUMBERS.

And Dean Baker documented just who was the ideologue living in a world of talking points: 80,000 jobs.  Not even HALF of his shockingly idiotic estimate.  And it was the conservative and his “talking points” who was right, right, RIGHT.

If it was a street fight, Goldman would be standing over Baker’s corpse and liberalism would be lying on the street DEAD.  But you just can’t kill this failed ideology of liberalism off in a “civilized” world.  They just get to keep screeching to fools and counting on the fact that there will always be ignorant, stupid, depraved people who believe that somebody else ought to be forced to support their failed lifestyles.

Stop and think about the difference of this “cancer presidency” and the Reagan recovery.  As voters considered re-electing Ronald Reagan, GDP was surging to 8.5 percent.  Under Obama, it’s 1.2 percent and we’re facing a double-dip recession.

Newsbusters has a great documentation of how incredibly propagandist the mainstream media was.  In May, 1984, when the jobs report for Ronald Reagan reported 269,000 jobs, the New York Slimes actually arbitrarily revised it DOWN by 19,000 jobs to 250,000 ostensibly to keep the numbers in increments of 50,000.  So if the New York Times were fairly “reporting” on Obama today, we’d have only 50,000 jobs created, wouldn’t we?  And whereas Obama’s numbers keep getting revised DOWN, Reagan’s for some mysterious reason were being revised UP: the revised jobs report for May, 1984 actually showed growth of 363,000 jobs.   Compare that to Obama’s jobs number above – recognizing that Reagan’s number was when we had a population of 235 million people versus 313 million today - and tell me that Obama isn’t wildly failing the American people.

The worst lies, according to the “lies, damned lies and statistics” proverb, are statistics.  And when liberals control the statistics, you get great news being depicted as lousy news and you get lousy news being depicted as great news.

Your biggest problem in being able to know the truth is that most of our “journalists” are Marxist propagandists who could have easily fit in at TASS during the Soviet days.

Ultimately communist “journalists” blamed seventy years of bad weather for why they couldn’t keep up with Ronald Reagan and an America that was being ran under conservative Republican policies.

And Obama is one of those Marxist ideologues trying to explain away failure and marginalize Reagan.  He makes me SICK with his rabid dishonesty.

Obama keeps demonizing Romney as standing for the “same failed Republican policies of the past.”  JUST LIKE RONALD REAGAN’S.

If you want to see “the failed policies of the past” you just take a look at Barack Obama’s utterly failed liberal policies of the last four years.  And as much as Obama has demonized George W. Bush, Barack Obama has never once even in his very best month been anywhere CLOSE to George Bush’s very worst month of unemployment.

Bill O’Reilly interviewed Bill Clinton and asked a question: Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama – who collected the largest revenue?

O’REILLY: I didn’t mind paying you that but do you know between… among you, Obama and Bush who had the highest tax receipts of all three of you? Do you know? Bush. So under prosperity the tax cuts under Bush more money flowed into the federal government.

Bill Clinton didn’t know (or more likely, knew but wouldn’t answer) and shook his head without responding: Bill O’Reilly supplied the answer: George Bush.  And that is because Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

For the record, if Barack Obama were held accountable to the labor participation rate that he inherited from George Bush, unemployment would be well over 11 percent right now.  The only reason that Obama’s unemployment number is as “good” as 8.2 percent is because Obama has destroyed millions of jobs and driven millions of Americans completely out of the work force where they are simply not even counted by the Labor Department.  The fact is that 88 million working-age Americans are not in the work force because of this completely failed presidency.  And the far better U-6 unemployment measurement has unemployment at 14.9%.

For the record, Bush’s U-6 rate was more than five points lower at this point in his presidency as he faced re-election.  To go with a 5.5 percent U-3 rate which is nearly three points lower.  But, hey, whatever we do, let’s not go back to “those failed policies.”

The “failed Republican policies of the past” don’t just refer to George Bush in late 2008 ( Democrats want you to believe that Bush was only president for the last few months of 2008 because the rest of his presidency looked pretty darn good); they refer to Ronald Reagan.

Let me tell you liberal pukes something: Ronald Reagan didn’t fail at NOTHIN’.

I wrote an article describing the grim economic indicators that were facing Ronald Reagan when he took office in 1980.  Jimmy Carter had said of the crisis, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Unlike Jimmy Carter – and at this point it is very obvious to say, unlike Barack Obama – Ronald Reagan had a solution.  Under Reagan’s leadership, the US economy soared into the stratosphere.  Bill Clinton became part of that Reaganomics solution when he acknowledged that “the era of big government is over” and cooperated with the Republicans who had swept both the House and the Senate in a landslide when he too had failed to accept that conservative policies WORK.

It is a solution that Barack Obama has dedicated his entire life to destroying.  Which is why Obama has never and never WILL succeed as president.

If I had Barack Obama’s performance, I would resign.  I would have held a press conference and declared, “I’m sorry.  I thought I had a plan to turn this economy around.  Clearly I was wrong.  It’s time for me to step aside and allow someone with better ideas and better leadership to help the American people.”

But Barack Obama doesn’t give one miserable rat damn about the American people.  All the people whose support Obama rode to victory are the worst impacted by the disgrace of the Obama economy: black unemployment, Hispanic unemployment, female unemployment, college-age unemployment are utterly pathetic.  Last month in the “Obama recovery” minorities suffered miserably; this month their suffering got worse.  The unemployment rates for blacks shot up to 14.4 percent (14.8 percent prior to ‘seasonal adjustment’). Barack Obama is to these people as Adolf Hitler was to Germans, promising a government Utopia and producing nothing but abject ruin.

Barack Obama has declared war on the United States of America.  But instead of bullets and bombs, he has waged his war with massive and unsustainable government spending and joblessness.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers