Posts Tagged ‘1940’

Obama Administration Admits It Will Leave Unemployment Higher Than It Found It

February 2, 2010

Get ready for three more years of blaming Bush.

It was George Bush’s fault that Obama lost more jobs than any president in any year since records began being kept in 1940, of course.  Everyone who takes their propaganda seriously knows that.

And it will ALWAYS be George Bush’s fault.  George Bush is Obama’s Emmanuel Goldstein – the scapegoat that Big Brother eternally blames for all the woes of Oceania.

From ABC:

At a subsequent briefing with reporters, Christina Romer said that the administration believes the unemployment rate will continue to hover around 10-percent throughout 2010.  She projects that 2010 will end with the unemployment rate at 9.8%, 2011 at 8.9% and 2012 at 7.9%.

Christina Romer, who heads Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, forecasts that unemployment will be at 7.9% by the end of Obama’s term in 2012.  The thing is, it was 7.6% when he took office from George Bush.

So the people who assured us that unemployment would never get over 8% if their pork-laden liberal slush fund otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed are now forecasting that they might actually get unemployment below what they said it wouldn’t ever get to by the end of Obama’s presidency.

And that, of course, is looking on the very, very bright side.

Both the Congressional Budget Office and  Goldman Sachs predict that unemployment will be considerably worse than the Obama administration figures.

The Obama administration continued to pimp its porkulus and – use utterly bogus methodology and utter bogus statistics to do so – even long after the lie became obvious.  A year after using the purely invented criteria of “created or saved jobs,” and after being caught again and again creating phony job numbers complete with phony zip codes and phony congressional districts, the Obama administration finally said that it would abandon its “controversial method of counting jobs” (to quote the AP).  But that was just another lie: they went right back to rolling in their own feces again.

The White House’s “created or saved” job numbers are so pulled-out-of-thin-air that three different Obama officials actually gave three different bogus “created jobs” numbers on the very same day.

The only thing you can trust the Obama administration to do is lie to you.

And since they always lie to favor themselves and make themselves look better, you have to wonder how bad things will actually get for Obama to make such a stunning acknowledgment (that unemployment will remain higher than it was when Obama took office throughout his entire presidency).

There’s a dirty little secret about our unemployment that Obama and the lamestream media aren’t telling us.

I continue to believe that unemployment will continue to get worse in agreement with famed analyst Meredith Whitney:

Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

I have never heard the kind of demagoguery and blame from any president in my lifetime that I have routinely heard from Barack Obama.  He has spread every imaginable species of bull crap to explain his failures.

Now that we find out that – by Obama’s very own numbers – his unemployment rate will continue to remain higher than it was than when he assumed the presidency from George Bush,  we can safely assume that blame, excuses, and demagoguery will be the constant pattern for the final three years of Obama’s failed presidency.

Advertisements

A Little Factoid: 77% Of Investors See Obama As ‘Anti-Business’

January 23, 2010

Stocks have tumbled 552 points as Obama announced his crackdown on American banks.  As a CNBC financial expert put it, “Obamanomics is a Chilling Experiment.”

From the AP on January 22:

NEW YORK – Stocks suffered their fourth sharp drop in five trading days as investors caved to growing anxiety about President Barack H. Obama’s plans to restrict big banks and earnings reports that just aren’t good enough.

The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 217 points Friday, having lost 552 points, or 5.2 percent, over the past three days. Over the past five trading days, the Dow has fallen 537 points, having gained 115 points on Tuesday.

The drop gave the Dow its worst week since the index hit a 12-year low in March.

Investors are saying to Obama, “Please don’t do this,” but he is showing the same deaf-eared fanatic-ideologue determination that he demonstrated in driving his awful ObamaCare forward.

Is it any wonder that most investors – by an overwhelming margin – now believe that Barack Obama is simply hostile to business and to the market forces that allow for economic growth?

From Bloomberg, via Yahoo News:

Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors
Heidi Przybyla Heidi Przybyla   – Thu Jan 21, 6:25 pm ET

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey.

The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.

The poll also finds a decline in Obama’s overall favorability rating one year after taking office. He is viewed favorably by 27 percent of U.S. investors. In an October poll, 32 percent in the U.S. held a positive impression.

Investors no longer feel they can trust their instincts to take risks,” said poll respondent David Young, a managing director for a broker dealer in New York. Young cited Obama’s efforts to trim bonuses and earnings, make health care his top priority over jobs and plans to tax “the rich or advantaged.”

Carlos Vadillo, a fixed-income analyst at Wells Fargo Securities LLC in San Francisco, said Obama has been in a “constant war” with the banking system, using “fat-cat bankers and other misnomers to describe a business model which supports a large portion of America.” […]

Obama’s 71 percent unfavorable rating among U.S. investors is almost matched by two members of his economic team. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Lawrence Summers, president of the National Economic Council. U.S. respondents give Geithner a 63 percent unfavorable rating and Summers 67 percent. In October, 57 percent held a negative view of Geithner and 66 percent said the same of Summers.

Like Obama, both men do better with Asian and European investors.

One financial figure to find favor among U.S. respondents is Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who garners a 68 percent approval rating, which is in line with his marks from non-U.S. investors and the rating U.S. investors gave him in the October poll. […]

The U.S. investors’ overwhelming characterization of Obama as anti-business stands in sharp contrast to the results of a Bloomberg National Poll in December, when 52 percent of U.S. adults said the president had the right balance in his approach.

Obama gets considerably higher marks in Europe and somewhat higher marks in Asia.  Like I give a damn about what socialists think about our socialist president.

Take the Europeans (PLEASE!).  They claim to welcome Obama’s attack against banks, but at the same time announce they have absolutely no intention of killing their nations the way Obama is killing America.

One quote in particular that comes out of the above article:

“The Obama plan is really back to the future. These sort of plans were implemented after the Great Depression and then taken away in the 60s. He is sort of reinstating the same plans to deal with this crisis,” the source said.

Obama is taking us back to the Great Depression to “solve” our recession.  The problem is that economists now realize that FDR’s constant bureaucratic interference was what kept America in the Depression seven years longer than what was necessary.

Anyone with half a brain (which understandably rules out most Democrats) should readily understand that the cost of Obama’s taxes on and interference of banks will only end up being passed on to American consumers in the form of higher fees, charges, and penalties.  Obama is really only taxing us through the banks.  And he’s using populist demagoguery in hopes of making us want to punish the banks so much that we forget that we’ll be seeing higher fees as a direct result of that punishment.

Obama has lost more jobs in one year than any president has lost since 1940.  He has presided over the destruction of 4.1 million jobs.

This is NOT a “future” we should ever want to go “back to.”

Our investors – who far and away have been forced to live under Obama’s policies – pretty much realize he sucks across the board.

What does Obama have to offer?  No solutions, just more problems, and more attacks.  All to the tune of “It’s Bush’s fault.”

Obama Actually Blames Massachusetts Voting Republican ON GEORGE BUSH

January 20, 2010

It turns out that there is absolutely nothing that Obama won’t blame on George Bush.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama said the following:

Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.

Here’s my assessment of why Camelot just flung out the Kennedy legacy and voted Republican for a seat that had been in Democrat hands since 1952: it’s Bush’s fault.  People are angry at the failure of George Bush, and so they punished him by voting for the party of George Bush.  Don’t blame me; I just work here.”

That’s right.  George Bush is so evil, and did such a terrible job, that the voters of the most liberal state in the nation voted for a Republican.  That’s your failure-in-chief’s “assessment.”

Kind of explains why everything the guy does has failed.  He’s a rigid ideologue who thinks purely in terms of demagoguery.  He lives in a little tiny black box and nothing gets in or out of that box.

In a way Obama is insulting his own campaign.  Why did he win?  Because people were angry.  And the same sort of inchoate, unthinking, unreasoning anger that propelled him to victory is now propelling Republicans to victory.

It also ties into the historical narrative often played by the lamestream media: when Republicans do well, there has to be some dark reason for their success.  The Republican Revolution was re-cast as “the year of the angry white male.”  It’s hate.  It’s anger.  It’s racism.

What about the other liberal narrative, that Bush destroyed the economy, and even now, a year later, Obama is just being blamed for Bush’s failed policies?

When Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took control of the House and the Senate back in 2006, unemployment was only 4.7%.   Democrats demagogued their way to power in 2005 on the basis of screaming about Iraq and Hurricane Katrina; the economy was humming along.  But once they took the House and the Senate, they got right to work destroying the economy with the same socialist big government garbage that they’re playing now.  And then again after the economic meltdown of 2008, Democrats and their propaganda allies in the lamestream media pitched the demagogic narrative that the economic disaster had to have been George Bush’s fault because it happened during his watch.  But didn’t it happen on Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s watch, too?

What’s the unemployment rate now exactly three years after Democrats took over Congress?

And since Barack Obama took over from Bush, we have lost more jobs under Obama than ANY president has lost in ANY year since 1940.

Believe you me — there’s all kinds of reasons to hold Democrats responsible for the economic meltdown.  Maybe it’s long past time you began to reconsider who really exploded the economy, Republicans or Democrats?

But as long as there is one slack-jawed, drooling imbecile in the country dumb enough to believe the Democrats’ demonizations, George Bush will keep getting blamed.

Hey, Obama, are you hoping for a little reverse psychology in November, that people will be so angry at the total failure otherwise known as Barack Hussein that they’ll vote for Democrats?

It is long past time that ordinary people realized that every single time Democrats try to blame Bush they are acknowledging their own failure to lead.  They are openly admitting, “Don’t ask us to solve any problems.  We’re just demagogues.  All we can do is blame someone else.”

Obama Administration Sacrifices All Credibility Re: Failed Stimulus

January 14, 2010

The Obama administration, after every false promise that didn’t come to pass, every false measurement that included phony congressional districts and bogus zip codes, and repeated humiliations, finally dropped it’s fraudulent and never-before-used-in-history “created or saved” jobs.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.

Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It’s no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it’s a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.

That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.

The new rules, quietly published last month in a memorandum to federal agencies, mark the White House’s latest response to criticism about the way it counts jobs credited to the stimulus. When The Associated Press first reported flaws in the job counts in October, the White House said errors were being corrected and future counts would provide a full and correct accounting of just how many stimulus jobs were saved or created.

So they’re supposedly not pulling that bogus crap any longer.

Only they still are.  It’s amazing how quickly the most dishonest administration in the last century violates its own statements.

Britt Hume took apart the new version of of the same old bogus crap they’re trying to pull now:

“One day after it came out that the administration had decided to stop trying to count the number of jobs created or saved by that $787 billion spending bill the president signed last year, the White House was back doing it again.

Christina Romer, the president’s top economic adviser, announced Tuesday that the spending had resulted in 2 million jobs created or saved. Romer called that a, “truly stunning and important effect,” adding that the spending, “had done exactly what we have anticipated it would do.”

No it hasn’t.

Romer herself said a year ago that the stimulus spending would hold the unemployment rate below eight percent. It’s now at 10 and counting. More than 4 million jobs were lost last year
. What’s more, an analysis by the Associated Press has found that the outlays on roads, bridges and other infrastructure, had no discernible effect on local employment and had barely helped the construction industry.

The lesson here is a very old one: Government spending is a poor antidote to recession because the money has to be taxed or borrowed from one part of the economy to be spent in another. Not only that, it’s slow medicine. Even Romer said in her glowing report that only about a third of the money had been spent.

On second thought, given the effect the spend-fest has had on the deficit, maybe that’s the good news.”

— Brit Hume is the senior political analyst for Fox News Channel.

Christina Romer has sacrificed all personal and professional credibility to protect and defend the failed policies of Barack Obama.

She was the White House official who assured the nation that unemployment would not go over 8% if Obama’s stimulus passed.

She was the White House official who told us that the stimulus would have its greatest impact in the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2009, which means it has already basically run its course.

Now she’s saying the stimulus which she herself claimed would prevent unemployment from going above 8% – and which ran its course last year after unemployment went up above 10% – fulfilled the Obama White House’s predictions?  Seriously?

Does this mean that Obama PLANNED to lose more jobs during his first year as president than any president has EVER lost – over 4 MILLION – since 1940?

This is Obama doing GOOD?  O.M.G.

I suppose businesses paralyzed by uncertainty due to Obama’s policies and the harm that they will do to the economy, which is frightening away new hiring, must be REALLY good.

All I can say is this: if this is the Obama administration’s idea of doing good (at least a good, solid B+ anyway), may God have mercy on our doomed souls if they ever actually screw up.

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.