Posts Tagged ‘CPI’

After Mocking And Slandering John Boehner Over His Failed House Vote, Senate Democrats’ Pathetic Debacle Takes America To Brink Of Fiscal Cliff

December 31, 2012

It couldn’t have happened to a more demon-possessed guy.

Remember just a few days ago, how gleeful Democrats were over John Boehner – who was it should be pointed out merely trying to get something the hell PASSED in the midst of the mean ugly drunk mother of all bureaucrtic debacles in all of history – was unable to get a majority vote on his “plan B” proposal?  With Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid leading the jeering section:

Let me remind you:

“John Boehner seems to care more about keeping his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing,” Reid said during a fiery address from the Senate floor. “It’s obvious, Mr. President, what’s going on around here. He’s waiting until Jan. 3 to get re-elected as speaker before he gets serious with negotiations because he has so many people over there that won’t follow what he wants. That’s obvious from the debacle that took place last week. And it was a debacle.”

Reid was referring to Boehner’s decision last week to call off a vote on his so-called “Plan B” in what was an embarrassing admission by the House Speaker that his proposal lacked sufficient support.

That actually happened AFTER Reid slanderously demonized Boehner by calling his House Speakership “a dictatorship.”

“The American people I don’t think understand the House of Representatives is  operating without the House of Representatives,” Reid said.

“It’s being operated by a dictatorship of the Speaker of the House, not  allowing the vast majority of the House of Representatives to get what they  want.”

You need to understand something: Reid is demandinging that the House hold a vote on what he wants them to vote on and the way he wants them to like the GOP is being unfair not to do that. Do you have any idea how many voted-on and passed House bills are sitting in Harry Reid’s Senate without Reid offering them an up or down vote???

Okay, so the man who has utterly failed to so much as even be able to produce a damn BUDGET in going on four freaking years is slandering his ideological enemy.  Classy.

How’s it going over there in the Senate that you Democrats (that’s short for “Demonic Bureaucrats”) own?

Not so good:

Congress Done for the Day, No Deal on ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Yet
Washington, DC
Sunday, December 30, 2012

No deal on the so-called “fiscal cliff” is expected in the Senate tonight. The Senate will be back in session tomorrow morning at 11am ET. The House comes back at 9am ET.

Earlier in the day, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced on the Senate floor that he was waiting for a response from Democrats to a GOP proposal made yesterday. He said he called Vice President Joe Biden to “jump start” the negotiations. “I’m willing to get this done. I need a dance partner.”

In reply, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) acknowledged Sen. McConnell’s “good faith” effort, but said “I don’t have a counter-offer to make.” Leader Reid said that he was working with the president and that a counter-proposal might be available later in the day. Shortly after words, Sen. Reid indicated that one of the issues holding back a Democratic counter-offer were proposed cuts to social security.

I’m sorry.  I’m not sure I heard that right, Harry Reid, you slandering lying hypocrite.  Tell us one more time how well you – the mocking a-hole who demagogued John Boehner for at least having the balls to call for a damn vote – have done on your side of the aisle:

I have had a number of conversations with the president, and at this stage we’re not able to make a counteroffer. The Republican leader has told me that — and he’s just said here — that he’s working with the vice president, and he and the vice president, I wish them well.

In the meantime, I will continue to try to come up with something. But at this stage, I don’t have a counteroffer to make. Perhaps as the day wears on, I will be able to. I will say this, I think that the Republican leader has shown absolutely good faith. It’s just that we are apart on some pretty big issues.

But Democrats were far too hopelessly fractured to come together to so much as make a counter-offer to the Republicans.  And that refusal to respond to the Republicans attempt to save America from ruin acknowledged after Reid got off the phone with his personal lord and savior Barack Hussein.  Obama doesn’t want a deal: he wants to raise taxes like crazy and actually blame the Republicans for the end to the Bush tax cuts while he’s doing it.  Harry Reid then actually left the Capitol Building for the night – leaving Senate Minority Leader McConnell burning the midnight oil desperately working all by himself to try to come up with something that will save the nation.

We’re 24 hours away from going off the cliff, and the Democrats can’t even get their acts together enough to make a counter offer to keep the talks going.  They want to raise your taxes and gut the military and they’re going to get what they want because this is God damn America and this is what happens in God damn America.  So Harry Reid closes up shop and goes home for the night.  Does the word “debacle” sound about right to describe what just happened in this hypocrites Senate under his dictatorship???

Why couldn’t you make a counter-offer, Harry, you turd?  Was it because you care only about your leadership position, you slandering demagogue hypocrite?  What the hell kind of damned dictatorship are you running in that banana republic of yours, anyway???

It so serves you right, Harry Reid.  And it so serves America right for cursing itself with stinking lumps of fecal matter for leaders such as yourself.  We deserve what is happening.  Our children deserve it.

Unfortunately, Republicans have made concession after concession while the lying Democrat Party has pretty much come up with snake eyes.  Which is fitting, given the fact that without snake eyes Democrats wouldn’t be able to see anything at all.

Meanwhile Obama has provided an example of his “compromise” in the form of the CPI (Chained Consumer Price) index adjustment he claims he’s willing to make.  Here’s the problem: there is absolutely zero way in hell that the Senate Democrats would ever go along with that.  In fact, the negotiations in the Democrat-controlled Senate utterly broke down until the Republicans conceded yet AGAIN by removing their demand for it:

WASHINGTON — Tense “fiscal cliff” negotiations on Capitol Hill Sunday inched forward slightly as Republican senators agreed to take Social Security cuts off their list of immediate demands.

The cut that GOP leaders had proposed — picking up on a now-defunct offer from President Barack Obama — involved basing Social Security cost-of-living adjustments on a chained consumer price index (CPI), which grows more slowly than current measures of inflation and therefore would give seniors less in benefits as time went on.

But Senate Republicans realized in a caucus meeting Sunday afternoon that the idea was a loser for now, even if they might return to it in reaching a larger deal later on.

“CPI has to be off the table because it’s not a winning argument to say benefits for seniors versus tax breaks for rich people,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “We need to take CPI off the table — that’s not part of the negotiations — because we can’t win an argument that has Social Security for seniors versus taxes for the rich.”

“There’s a realization that in spite of the president’s apparent endorsement of a chained CPI that that proposal deserves more study,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “My guess, based on what Democrats are saying is that that reform would not happen during this stage of the negotiations.”

A Democratic aide, informed of the reversal from a proposal that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had offered late Saturday — which included the Social Security cut — took it as a hopeful sign.

“Well, that’s some progress,” said the aide, who was granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the talks.

Which is another way of saying Obama has offered absolutely no realistic compromise of any kind.  Every single time Obama says that Republicans have to meet him half way, he is an absolute liar without shame, without honor and without decency.  Because this national disgrace-in-chief has offered up absolutely no real compromise that would ever actually see the light of day whatsoever.

Republicans are almost as insane as the Democrats for trying again and again to make concessions hoping to get a deal done with these fascists.

You want the truth?  America is now about $225 trillion in debt.  We are necessarily going to implode.  Children and old people are going to die.  And it is 99.999% the fault of the Democrat Party who cursed America with unsustainable entitlements in the form of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid without ever ONCE in their history being willing to fix the national ruin they guaranteed.

That said, not only do the Democrats demand tax hikes that won’t even pay for nine days of spending at current Obama fiscal insanity; they actually demand MORE spending and MORE debt to hasten our national collapse.  And somehow the Republican Party is immoral for trying to reign in this demonic spending.

This is God damn America under Obama, and God damn America fully deserves to go off the fiscal cliff and any other kind of cliff that we race toward in the determined drive to national suicide that began when Obama was re-elected.

America is now a truly evil nation.  We are an evil people who have wickedly and foolishly chosen evil leaders.  And God has made abundantly clear in His Word that He judges nations for the wickedness of their leaders.

Who will get the blame?  Republicans will.  Not because they deserve it, but because the people who will blame them are a wicked people.

I think back to George W. Bush getting all the blame for the bad economy during a period of time that Nancy Pelosi and Democrats owned the House of Representatives and Harry Reid and the Democrats owned the Senate.  When The Democrats took over in 2006, America was at full employment and America had a deficit of $162 billion.  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi sure fixed that good.  Yet somehow Bush got all the blame even though Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.  And now that Obama is president and Democrats control the Senate, a stupid and wicked people are going to hypocritically and dishonestly blame Republicans even though they have a fraction of the power and responsibility that Democrats had when America went down in 2008.

I’m just waiting for the Rapture.  I call it the Great Bailout now.  Because Democrats have so completely screwed up America that its collapse is a guaranteed done deal at this point.  And the Antichrist is coming next.

Advertisements

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

May 16, 2011

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

As I previously explained:

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

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

Welcome back, Carter.

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

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

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

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

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

So what does the mainstream media do with that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait a minute.  What was that one sentence again?

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

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

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