Posts Tagged ‘2’

Real Unemployment Rate Under Obama Over Nineteen Percent (As In FDR-Great Depression Unemployment)

February 17, 2012

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

In April 1939, after six years of failed FDR policies, unemployment was 20.7%

Obama is campaigning all over boasting that he’s cut the unemployment rate.  They say there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.  And Obama’s 8.3% unemployment rate is of the most demonic category of lie.

Here’s the reality:

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Each result is based on a 30-day rolling average; not seasonally adjusted

  % Employed full time for an employer % Underemployed % Unemployed
01/26/2012 64.60 18.40 8.60
01/27/2012 64.40 18.50 8.70
01/28/2012 64.20 18.60 8.60
01/29/2012 64.10 18.70 8.60
01/30/2012 64.20 18.60 8.60
01/31/2012 63.90 18.70 8.60
02/1/2012 63.90 18.80 8.70
02/2/2012 64.00 18.70 8.70
02/3/2012 64.00 18.70 8.70
02/6/2012 64.10 18.70 8.70
02/7/2012 64.10 18.80 8.80
02/8/2012 64.00 18.80 8.90
02/9/2012 64.00 18.90 8.90
02/10/2012 64.00 19.00 8.90
02/11/2012 63.70 19.30 9.10
02/12/2012 63.90 19.20 9.00
02/13/2012 63.90 19.10 8.90
02/14/2012 64.00 19.10 9.00
02/15/2012 64.00 19.00 9.00
02/16/2012 63.80 19.10 9.10
Gallup tracks daily the percentage of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed, unemployed, and employed full-time for an employer, without seasonal adjustment. “Underemployed” respondents are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed. “Unemployed” respondents are those within the underemployed group who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work. Respondents “Employed Full Time for an Employer” are those who are employed by an employer for at least 30 hours per week. Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.

Notice that Obama has done NOTHING to bring down the “% underemployed” figure – which counted in the official unemployment statistic when FDR was miserably failing – while he was claiming to bring down unemployment.  Which is another way of saying that there are today more Americans suffering under the Barack Obama experiment in failure than EVER.

Here’s another quote for you:

I told you so, you God-damn-America dumbasses.” — Michael Eden, almost every day of the last four years.

Obama was hailed as the second coming of FDR by the left:

And we’ve got what we voted for: another massive FDR New Deal failure of disastrous Keynesian economics, most likely followed by a world war.

Only this world war that our new FDR will bring us won’t be nearly as fun due to all the global thermonuclear weapons that will be flying around.

Here are a few more facts that your mainstream media propaganda hasn’t been telling you about:

Congressional budget chief offers dim outlook on economic growth, jobs
By Jim Angle
Published February 01, 2012 |

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf on Wednesday projected that economic growth will slow by next year and unemployment will rise before that — a forecast that Rep. Paul Ryan called ominous, grim and alarming.
Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.
Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 “will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.” 
“Trillions more dollars will be added to debt in the years ahead, putting a chilling effect on jobs creation today and committing the next generation to a diminished future,” he said.

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen took a different approach, saying deficits and growth would have been worse without President Obama’s stimulus plan. “The Recovery Act did serve its purpose. It’s kind of like when you’re walking up an escalator that’s going down very quickly. If you take no action you will go down very fast,” he said. 
Yet future deficits depend in large part on how fast the economy grows, along with spending and revenues. And on that front, the CBO isn’t offering a lot of encouragement
“The pace of the recovery has been slow since the recession ended two and a half years ago,” Elmendorf said. “And we project that it will continue to be slow for the next two years.”
The CBO believes that economic growth will be only 2 percent this year — and an anemic 1.1 percent next year. 
The office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time
That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director.  “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked. 
“I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”
And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.

So why would CBO Director Elmendorf have a prediction that flies in the face of the Obama-media propaganda???

Because – and here you will have to pardon my language – he has the raw “unadjusted” (meaning “unfudged”) statistics to see through the statistical bullcrap that is being put out.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge is another guy who sees through the lens-distorting effect of all the bovine feces.  In commenting about the real plunge in retail sales, Durden said:

The topic of BLS propaganda seasonal adjustments has been discussed extensively here especially in light of January’s NFP beat. We’ll leave it at that. However, we were rather surprised to note that the Census Bureau may have also ramped up its seasonal adjustment “fudge factoring” because when looking at the January headline retail sales data, which naturally was a smoothly continuous line on a Seasonally Adjusted basis, rising from $399.9 billion in December to $401.4 billion in January, something rather odd happened in the Unadjusted data set: the plunge from $459.8 billion in December to $361.4 billion in January, or -$98.5 billion in one month, was the biggest one month drop in retail sales in history. Now we won’t say much on this topic, suffice to say that it would be far more useful if the BLS and Census Bureaus were to open up their models and explain in nuanced detail just what “old normal” adjustments they still incorporate into data sets. Because as many have already noted, seasonal adjustments used for data from 1980 to 2008 when “up” was the only allowed direction for everything, are completely irrelevant and misleading in the New Deleveraging Normal. Which reminds us: Zero Hedge will offer $10,000 to the first BLS employee to share with us the full and complete excel model set, including assumptions, data tables, and comprehensive output parameters that the agency uses to go from input A to output X. We hope that by spending that money we will finally do society a service and open up to everyone just how it is that the BLS adjusts its Non-Farm Payrolls data.

If he actually gets the chance to buy that data, I will give my contribution to Tyler Durden instead of the Republican candidate.  Because the truth will do more to get Obama out of office that any GOP ad ever could.

We’ve heard the phrase “Great Depression” bandied about.  Here are a few facts that people ought to know:

The Great Depression was triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929. Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. [Read about what to before, during and after a deflationary crash] Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

A Wikipedia article provides a few other details that ought to make someone looking at our present day rather uncomfortable:

Even after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, optimism persisted for some time; John D. Rockefeller said that “These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.”[11] The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April. This was still almost 30% below the peak of September 1929.[12]

Together, government and business spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. On the other hand, consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent. Likewise, beginning in mid-1930, a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA.

By mid-1930, interest rates had dropped to low levels, but expected deflation and the continuing reluctance of people to borrow meant that consumer spending and investment were depressed.[13] By May 1930, automobile sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, although wages held steady in 1930; but then a deflationary spiral started in 1931. Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs.

I’ve pointed out a few things before: first of all, “things are starting to look a little better” is by no rational means whatsoever any kind of indicator that we’re not going to plunge; BECAUSE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION

We’re being kept in the dark and fed on manure just like all the other government-cultivated mushrooms.

And we’re going to pay for it right here in good ol’ God damn America.

The beast is coming.

Where Are The Death Panels In ObamaCare? Where AREN’T They???

October 28, 2010

This isn’t like playing “Where’s Waldo?”

Because the death panels are EVERYWHERE in this picture:

First Chart

An article from National Review points out:

Staff members at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee “spent four months, night and day, and weekends” assembling this amazing graphic, Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas) tells me by phone. “They vetted it based on all 2,801 pages of the Obamacare legislation. They captured this new law’s stunningly complexity.”

Can you SEE all the damn bureaucracies?

The passage of ObamaCare triggered the creation of more than 160 new boards, bureaucracies, programs, and commissions – or shall I call them death panels, given what we’re already starting to see?

D. James Kennedy once prophetically said:

“Watch out, grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

That day is coming quickly.  Unless we elect Republicans to repeal and replace this despicable monstrosity.

ObamaCare Will Increase Insurance Premiums

December 1, 2009

One of the fundamental promises of Democrats is that their massive takeover of health care would deliver lower costs, delivering an economy of scale.

The problem is that government has never been very good at lowering the cost of anything.  Quite the contrary.

And what has always been true before turns out to be true again.

Let’s get right to the nitty gritty of the CBO report:

“CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law. About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law,” the report says.

Now, Democrats are trying to argue that about the “about half of those enrollees” who would have lower premiums due to receiving government subsidies.  But understand: the costs are objectively higher by 10-13% than they would have been had we done absolutely nothing at all.  The mere fact that some people are getting transfer (i.e., welfare) payments from the government (i.e., from still more government taxing and borrowing) doesn’t in any way change that fact.

Stop and think about it: it would be a lot cheaper for the government to provide people with subsidies based on the lower costs of doing nothing else to mess with the health care system.  It is an outright fraud for Democrats to say they will lower costs.

I like the way Mitch McConnell put it:

“The bottom line is this: After 2,074 pages and trillions more in government spending, massive new taxes and a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare for seniors, most people, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will end up paying more or seeing no significant savings,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. The health insurance industry’s lobbying arms also proclaimed that the report confirmed their similar warnings.

This is just a terrible bill, and a terrible philosophy.

Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING that will reduce the costs of healthcare.  They are diametrically opposed to tort reform, which would lower the costs of premiums by lowering doctors’ exposure to risks, simply because the sharks – I mean lawyers – who sue everything that walks, crawls, swims or flies are a major Democrat special interest group.

In the same way, Democrats talk about “increasing competition,” and yet they are fundamentally opposed to actually doing anything of the sort.  A primary reason healthcare costs have increased so much is due to the fact that insurance companies are specifically forbidden from being allowed to compete across state lines.  Republicans want competition; Democrats do not.  Rather, Democrats want to continue to mandate special interests-based coverage by dictating to insurance companies what coverage they must offer.

The other thing is that Democrats talk about the fraud they are offering is “deficit neutral.”  It is no such thing.  They played budget gimmicks, taxing for four years before having to pay out any benefits.  If you look at the costs of the NEXT ten years – when benefits will actually be paid out for all ten years – the cost will be $2.5 trillion, rather than the $848 billion that the Demcorats talk about in their tax-for-ten-year-spend-for-six plan.

Taxes will be raised by over $500 billion.  Medicare will be cut by $500 billion.  $500 billion is another way of saying half a trillion dollars.  That’s how the Democrats get their “savings”: they bleed it from taxpayers, and they steal it from their previous commitments to senior citizens.

The Democrats’ bill raises taxes, guts Medicare, and raises premiums.  You can start to understand why the Dean of the Harvard School of Medicine gave the bill a failing grade.