Posts Tagged ‘Gallup’

New Jobs Figures A Real April Fools Day Joke On America

April 2, 2011

This is a joke that needs a little explaining.  But the real joke is on anyone fool enough to fall for the charades:

U.S. employment jumps in March, jobless rate falls
Apr 1, 2011
Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. employment recorded a second straight month of solid gains in March and the jobless rate fell to a two-year low of 8.8 percent, marking a decisive shift in the labour market that should help to underpin the economic recovery.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 216,000 last month, the largest increase since May, the Labour Department said on Friday. January and February employment figures were revised to show 7,000 more jobs than previously reported.

The strong job gains come amid indications the economy suffered a minor setback early in the year as bad weather and rising energy prices dampened activity.

“All the evidence is pointing to a strengthening labour market,” said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston.

First of all, remind me never, EVER to do business with John Hancock Financial Services.

Just to point out how incredibly and massively biased the “experts” who are spinning these numbers are, let me quote this same Bill Cheney from the same John Hancock from when Bush was president and the unemployment rate was more than THREE POINTS LOWER:

“We were expecting to celebrate New Year’s and instead got slapped with a pink slip,” said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.

The subtitle of that CNN Money article was “Jobs grow by just 1,000 in December, although unemployment rate drops to 5.7%.”

So, for those who are keeping score, when liberals are allowed to have a voice, 8.8% unemployment is good; 5.7% is bad.

I’m just saying: this couldn’t be more biased, full-of-crap propaganda by people who write the news based entirely on their leftwing ideology.  And they manage to track down economists who do the same thing.  And voilà: a expert-confirmed news story.

And this is just part of a very long, very well-established pattern of mainstream media “journalists” denouncing Republican economic data and blessing Democrat economic data even when the Republican data is BETTER than the Democrat numbers.

Here’s an interesting factoid that doesn’t seem to get any mention in the mainstream media: Unless I’m seriously mistaken, the unemployment rate has gone down every month since Republicans took control of The House in January:

Unemployment was if anything going UP.  And then Republicans took over, and whammo.  It started going down.  But Republicans didn’t receive so much as a scintilla of credit from the mainstream media.  It’s just amazing.

That’s first.  Second, there’s the facts that you have to dig for:

Still, the job gains haven’t led many people who stopped looking for work during the recession to start again. Fewer than two-thirds of American adults are either working or looking for work — the lowest participation rate in 25 years. […]

The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since November, the sharpest four-month drop since 1983. Stepped-up hiring is the main reason. But a more sobering factor is that the number of people who are either working or seeking a job remains surprisingly low for this stage of the recovery.

People without jobs who aren’t looking for one aren’t counted as unemployed. Once they start looking again, they’re classified as unemployed, and the unemployment rate can go back up. That can happen even if the economy is adding jobs.

Just 64.2 percent of adults have a job or are looking for one — the lowest participation rate since 1984. The number has been shrinking for four years. It suggests many people remain discouraged about their job prospects even as hiring is picking up.

This magnificent unemployment rate success largely reflects the fact that more and more people are just dropping out of the employment picture altogether.  And three of the four years this has been going on have been going on under Obama.

Here’s a graph of the labor participation rate:

Note how it skyrocketed under Ronald Reagan.  Note how it went DOWN under Bill Clinton until the Republicans OWNED the Democrats in 1994 and took over both the House and the Senate.  Note how it went down under Bush following the Dotcom bust (and the 9/11 attack) that Bush inherited from Bill Clinton.

As I point out in a previous article:

George Bush inherited the policies that led to the 9/11 disaster only months into his presidency.  George Bush inherited the Dotcom disaster that wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq index along with $7.1 trillion in American wealth that was just vaporized as a result of Bill Clinton’s economy.  And rather than spend the next two years blaming his predecessor, Bush cut taxes and turned the economy around.  At least until Democrat policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and Democrat refusal to reform and regulate Democrat-created Fannie and Freddie brought America crashing down.

Why don’t we blame the president who actually sued banks to force them to make bad loans to people who couldn’t afford the home loans that the banks were forced to provide???

By the standard the Democrats used to demonize George Bush in 2004, Barack Obama is the worst president in American history.

But the media prefers “the unexpected” to “the truth.”

You never hear how the first two years of Clinton were such a failure that he got the worst shellacking in fifty years; and then suddenly under Republican control things got mysteriously better as THEY cut spending and balanced the budget mostly over Clinton’s vetoes.  You just keep hearing that “Clinton balanced the budget.”

Note how Bush brought that declining labor participation back up after his tax cuts were passed and began to take effect.  And how that has happened AGAIN as the successful Republican-Bush tax rates were continued and things suddenly got miraculously better.

But let’s consider some other things.

We added 216,000 jobs last month.  Congratulations.  Here’s how many NEW unemployment claims were added every single WEEK in March:

Something just seems so wrong with this picture.  It makes that 216,000 jobs being added during the entire month of March just seem really, really sucky.

Somewhat similarly, the replacement rate due to population growth, etc. is 300,000 jobs a month:

“In order to make a real dent in the unemployment rate, economists estimate that at least 300,000 jobs need to be created each month.”

Meaning, we need to create 300,000 jobs a month just to stay even. But we created 216,000 jobs in March, which caused the unemployment rate to drop.  How’s that?!?!?

For the record, Gallup reported unemployment at a far more believable 10% in March.

What is truly being heralded here as a giant success is that millions of Americans are simply giving up and abandoning the work force altogether in Obama’s God damn America.

Advertisements

American People Looking Down The Road Bug-Eyed With Terror As Obama Drives Insanely

February 10, 2011

This picture originally had the caption, “How to know when it’s time to stop driving”:

But I look at that poor dog, bug-eyed-with-terror, and realize I’ve got the same exact horrified look on my face every time I think of Barack Obama behind the wheel of our economy.

Apparently this little old lady has long-since demonstrated that she should not be allowed to get behind the wheel of an automobile; and I’ll bet the little old lady didn’t suck up $5 trillion in only two years while she zigzagged around crazily, either.

Here’s a wide-eyed with fear American people looking down the road a short ways as Obama drives our economy like the blind fool that he is:

February 9, 2011
Obama’s Approval Rating on Deficit Sinks to New Low
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama’s approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months, even as his ratings on all other major national issues have generally held steady. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove.

2009-2011 Trend: President Barack Obama's Approval Rating on the Federal Budget Deficit

That’s right, fellow “bug-eyers”: only 27% of Americans think Obama isn’t worse driving our economy than a senile Stevie Wonders; fully 68% of the American people would like to open the door and bail out of the car and take their chances lying dazed and bleeding in the middle of the road.

On the broad subject of “the economy,” 60% of Americans are essentially saying, “Hell YES!” to the George Bush “Miss Me Yet?” question.

Unemployment Rate: At ‘Rate’ We’re Going, We’ll Have 0% Unemployment But No One Will Have An Actual Job

February 4, 2011

The last few months the unemployment rate has gone down even though the number of people who are participating in the workforce has gone down and down and down.  How can this be?

February 04, 2011
Labor Force Participation at 26 Year Low
Steve McCann

The headlines today trumpet a decline in the unemployment rate to 9.0%, however only 36,000 jobs were created.  The rate drop is due to the absurd policy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics not to count those who dropped out of the labor and ceased looking for a job.

A more important but unreported statistic is the massive drop in the labor force.  Today at 64.2%, the labor force participation rate (as a percentage of the total civilian noninstitutional population) is now at a 26 year low.  In January of 2000 it hit 67.5% by comparison.

 This  the lowest since 1984 and is the primary reason the unemployment rate has dropped to 9.0%.   Those not in the labor force has increased from 83.9 million to 86.2 million (a drop of 2.2 million on just one year).

In calculating the unemployment rate the BLS is now counting only 13.9 million as unemployed compared to 15 million two months ago when only 80,000 jobs created.  These are the disenchanted, no longer looking for a job and thus no longer on the BLS rolls.

The unemployment rate is a sleight of hand the reality is far worse.  There is no broad base recovery underway despite the best efforts to report otherwise.

Update from Steve McCann:

The Gallup Organization issues its own unemployment statistics which have been somewhat more accurate than the BLS and take into account more of the effect of those who have dropped out of the labor force.  Yesterday Gallup reported a U.S. unemployment rate of 9.8% up from 9.6% in December.

Further the underemployment rate (those unemployed and working part-time because they cannot find full-time work) in January was 18.9% down from 19.0% in December.  The closest number to this statistic issued by the BLS is the U-6 which showed 16.9% in January.

The summary in the Gallup report is:

Gallup’s measures paint a real-time picture of the current job realities on the ground.  Nearly 1 out of 10 Americans in the U.S. are unemployed nearly 1 out of 5 are underemployed, and the nation’s overall hiring situation has not improved over the past four to six months.

So, we have the dueling unemployment rates.  However Americans on Main Street know the situation for jobs has not improved over the past year as even more people enter the labor force each year.

At the rate that we are going given the bizarre measurements and the constant massaging of the data and the facts, we will literally have a zero percent unemployment rate.  With not one single person having a job in this completely failing and floundering economy.

The most meaningful measurement of our employment situation shows that we’re at 18.9%.  That’s Great Depression levels.  But just look here at this mainstream media headline and you’ll see that everything is fine, fine.  Nothing to see here, folks.

I think of the Soviet Union, which literally blamed the total failure of their entire political philosophy and the ruinous policies that philosophy entailed by claiming that their agricultural output had been adversely affected due to 72 years of bad weather.  And the Soviet Union has gone the way of the Dodo bird for that very reason.

Is America under Obama the next Dodo bird to fall apart while we’re assured that everything is fine while some suitable scapegoat bears the blame for every failure that can’t be ignored???

Unemployment 7.6% When Obama Took Office. Now 9.6% Are You Better Off Under Democrats?

October 9, 2010

Back in January, while Obama was flush in his promises of “hope and change,” unemployment was at 7.6% as George Bush was moving out.

That was high, granted.  Particularly for a president whose average unemployment rate during his eight-year term in office was 5.2%.

Unemployment was high enough that Obama was successful in turning fearmongering into an art form.  As he followed his chief of staff’s advice to “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Obama said that if we didn’t vote for his unparalleled in all of human history “stimulus” spending, we would suffer.  But if we passed his stimulus, on the other hand, his administration “predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%.”  Obama called it “the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”

Virtually every single Republican voted against the “stimulus,” predicting it would fail and make bad turn to worse.  Obama demonized them as “the party of no” and demagogued them as “blocking progress.”

The actual figure that Obama’s “stimulus” will cost America’s future – according to the CBO – is $3.27 TRILLION.

Let me ask you: are you better off than you were the day that Obama took the oath of office and put his feet up in the Oval Office?  Are you better off after Democrats took total control of both the House and the Senate?  Have you experienced “recovery,” or has it been a “wreckovery“?

Obama’s stimulus seems to be a pretty good deal – if you are a dead person or an incarcerated felon.

How high is unemployment under Obama?

The “official” government-reported rate remained unchanged this month at 9.6% in spite of the loss of 95,000 jobs.  But sadly the government under Barack Obama has already proven that he is more than capable of never-before-seen shenanigans.

The actual unemployment rate is probably even more frightening – and very likely to get worse.

Gallup – using the raw “seasonally unadjusted” numbers – calculates that the unemployment rate is now back into double-digit territory at 10.1%.

October 7, 2010
Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September
Underemployment, at 18.8%, is up from 18.6% at the end of August

by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ — Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September — up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month — the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September — and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government’s unemployment report on Friday.

Certain groups continue to fare worse than the national average. For example, 15.8% of Americans aged 18 to 29 and 13.9% of those with no college education were unemployed in September.

The increase in the unemployment rate component of Gallup’s underemployment measure is partially offset by fewer part-time workers, 8.7%, now wanting full-time work, down from 9.3% in August and 9.5% at the end of July.

As a result, underemployment shows a more modest increase to 18.8% in September from 18.6% in August, though it is up from 18.4% in July. Underemployment peaked at 20.4% in April and has yet to fall below 18.3% this year.

Friday’s Unemployment Rate Report Likely to Understate

The government’s final unemployment report before the midterm elections is based on job market conditions around mid-September. Gallup’s modeling of the unemployment rate is consistent with Tuesday’s ADP report of a decline of 39,000 private-sector jobs, and indicates that the government’s national unemployment rate in September will be in the 9.6% to 9.8% range. This is based on Gallup’s mid-September measurements and the continuing decline Gallup is seeing in the U.S. workforce during 2010.

However, Gallup’s monitoring of job market conditions suggests that there was a sharp increase in the unemployment rate during the last couple of weeks of September. It could be that the anticipated slowdown of the overall economy has potential employers even more cautious about hiring. Some of the increase could also be seasonal or temporary.

Further, Gallup’s underemployment measure suggests that the percentage of workers employed part time but looking for full-time work is declining as the unemployment rate increases. To some degree, this may reflect a reduced company demand for new part-time employees. For example, employers may be converting some existing part-time workers to full time when they are needed as replacements, but may not in turn be hiring replacement part-time workers. Another explanation may relate to the shrinkage of the workforce, as some employees who have taken part-time work in hopes of getting full-time jobs get discouraged and drop out of the workforce completely — going back to school to enhance their education, for example, instead of doing part-time work. It is even possible that some workers may find unemployment insurance a better alternative than part-time work with little prospect of going full time.

Regardless, the sharp increase in the unemployment rate during late September does not bode well for the economy during the fourth quarter, or for holiday sales. In this regard, it is essential that the Federal Reserve and other policymakers not be misled by Friday’s jobs numbers. The jobs picture could be deteriorating more rapidly than the government’s job release suggests.

Conservative economist John Lott boldly predicted when the stimulus was past that it would INCREASE unemployment.  Looking at today’s unemployment rate, who was proven right, and who has been proven completely wrong?  That same John Lott also surveyed other countries and demonstrated that those nations which did NOT engage in a massive stimulus like we did have universally fared better than countries that followed Obama.  And other economists have demonstrated that incredibly costly and redistributionist stimulus policies have NEVER stimulated economies.

Obama’s stimulus has been a complete disaster.  His administration assured us that it would create millions of “shovel-ready jobs.”  But the AP discovered that nothing of the sort had happened:

Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP’s analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.”

And, of course, it hasn’t just been Obama’s and the Democrats’ stimulus that entirely failed.  Democrat energy policies have resulted in nearly a million jobs just vanishing – possibly forever.

If Gallup’s data is correct, we will likely be seeing another wave of unemployment soon.  The numbers aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse.  We have now experienced unemployment above 9.5% for fourteen consecutive months.  And just to state the obvious, every single one of those months have been on Obama’s watch.

While Obama was on vacation late last August, I compiled some of the disasters that were gripping the US as Obama was gripping a golf club:

Since then, we’ve seen other records, such as “Highest poverty rate in fifty years,” and “Record number of Americans now on food stamps.”  We’ve got bad news measurements such as “Dollar tumbles to 15-year low” and “printing money like mad to ward off deflation.”

Obama spent half his first term passing his ObamaCare boondoggle.  Now Democrats are running against it.  Not one Democrat is campaigning on having passed health care or the stimulus.  Because both are a cause for shame, not pride.

And even liberal labor unions are now pleading for waivers so they don’t go bankrupt trying to live under ObamaCare.

For that matter, even Harry Reid’s OWN SON – who is running for governor as a Democrat – says that his father’s ObamaCare plan will hurt Nevada.

ObamaCare will be a $6.25 TRILLION tax on Americans and on the US economy unless the Republican Party receives enough votes to repeal it.

Economists now realize that FDR’s policies actually prolonged the Great Depression by a whopping seven years.  And that is precisely what the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats have done – prolong the suffering of Americans.

The last time Republicans actually ran the government in November 2006, unemployment was only 4.5%.  Democrats used the Iraq War and Katrina to demonize Republicans.  And those Democrats have done so well with the government ever since.

The last federal budget passed by Republicans – the FY2007 budget – had a deficit of $161 billion.  The very next year, under Democrat control, the FY2008 budget had a deficit nearly three times higher – $459 billion.  And now Democrats aren’t even bothering to pass budgets, and our annual deficit is estimated at over $1.3 trillion.

These are the dark days that Obama is warning Americans of returning to: Low unemployment and low (certainly by comparison!!!) spending.

Are you better off after 2 years of Obama, and after four years of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Why Have Republicans Jumped Out To Largest Lead EVER Over Democrats?

June 2, 2010

Something is building and growing.  And it is in response to the total failure of Democrat control.

June 1st, 2010
Republicans Jump Out To Historic Lead In Gallup Generic Ballot
Posted by Sean Trende

Gallup’s generic polling shows the number of voters saying that they would vote for Republicans rising three points from last week, while the number saying they will vote for Democrats dropped four pointsThe 49%-43% lead for the Republicans is the largest that the pollster has ever recorded for the partyMoreover, Democratic enthusiasm for voting this fall fell a point, while enthusiasm among Republicans stayed about fifteen points higher.  This indicates an even wider lead for Republicans once Gallup imposes a likely voter screen this fall.

There’s any number of reasons for this:  the public’s perception of Obama’s response to the oil spill, the shaky stock market performance last week, continued concern about the economy and spending.  The bottom line is that, despite what is perceived as an underperformance for the Republicans in PA-12 a couple of weeks ago, there are still plenty of Democrats in trouble for this November.

Keep up the good work, Democrats.

At the rate you’re going, there may not even BE any Democrats soon.  Because you suck, and people are starting to figure that out.

In addition to the fact that oil is pouring into the ocean at a rate that defies comprehension (we’re up to four times the calamity that the Exxon Valdez created with no end in sight), our banks that anchor our economy are bleeding out nearly as badly:

May 24, 2010
What recovery? Bank failures double this year compared to 2009

Although the federal bailout stabilized the banking system, bank failures are continuing at at rapid clip. Check out the latest federal tally. More than twice as many banks and savings and loans have been seized by regulators this year as in the same period last year: 73 in 2010, and 33 in 2009.

Banking analysts have long been warning us to expect a bumper crop of failures among small- to medium-sized community and regional banks this year. Many of the big banks that teetered on the edge of collapse had made bad bets on exotic mortgage securities. But most of the smaller banks are feeling the effects of residential mortgage foreclosures (such at the one pictured here) and, increasingly, commercial property loans going bad.

The Associated Press sums it up thus:

With 78 closures nationwide so far this year, the pace of bank failures is more than double that of 2009, which was already a brisk year for shutdowns. By this time last year, regulators had closed 36 banks. The pace has accelerated as banks’ losses mount on loans made for commercial property and development.

Now, remember that the first half of last year was the DEPTHS of the recession.  And it’s more than twice as bad this year as it was during those depths of the recession.

The only thing worse than having Republicans run things is having Democrats run things.  Only Democrats run things so much worse that America compares to a Swiss watch under Republicans.

Democrats do one thing well: they demagogue better than anybody in the world.  But lest we forget, during the period when the economy truly went into the crapper, between 2006 and 2008, it was under the total domination of Congress by Democrats.  Add that to the fact that it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created the becoming disaster for the very reasons that banks are still struggling (idiotic mortgage policies) that the Democrats owned lock, stock and barrel.

Meredith Whitney accurately predicted the economic meltdown when a lot of other “experts” were saying buy, buy, buy.

Here’s what she said in July of last year:

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.

And a year later, does it appear that the government has stabilized the banking industry?  NOT EVEN FREAKING CLOSE!!! The factors that Whitney cited in predicting 13% unemployment are happening before your very eyes.

Looking at 13% unemployment coming up, all I can think of is Al Pacino in Scarface: “Say hello to my little friend!

As bad a year as Bush had (thanks to Democrats who refused to do anything about the mortgage security crisis created and sustained by Fannie and Freddie), unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left office.

What was it the last month statistics were available, under Obama’s, Pelosi’s, and Reid’s terrible misrule?  9.9%.  And that after a massive failed stimulus that Obama promised would keep unemployment under 8%.  Obviously, it did nothing of the sort, but our children’s children’s children’s children will still be paying off a $3.27 TRILLION black hole of debt anyway.

Did somebody say “debt”?

Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge wrote on May 25:

This means that as of this moment, assuming the new debt were to settle today, the US has $13,031,095 billion in debt: congratulation America – you have now passed lucky $13 trillion in total debt. But don’t worry, we won’t stay here for long. At the current rate of issuance, $14 trillion will be passed in 8 months, and $15 trillion in another 7. By the end of 2011, we estimate total US sovereign debt to be about $15.5 trillion.

Democrats tore into Bush tooth and nail over his increase of the national debt.  That said, it took George Bush eight full years to increase the debt by $4.89 trillion.

Right now, under Barry Hussein, it is $13.o28 trillion.  Which is to say that Obama increased the debt by more than $2.4 trillion in only fifteen months.  That will be more than $3.4 trillion in just over two years in office.  By the end of 2011, after less than three full years in office, Obama’s share of the debt will be $4.9 trillion.

Which is to say that Obama will have racked up as much debt as Bush did in eight years in only three.  Obama is increasing the debt at nearly three times the rate that Bush did.

Which goes back to what I said about Republicans being bad – unless you compare them against Democrats.

Over the past thirty years, Democrat Congresses have increased the debt 2.4 times as much as have Republican Congresses.  Another way to put it is that Democrat Congresses have spent 137.7% more than Republican Congresses.

We are hurtling toward a disaster that will create a collapse that will ultimately make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.  The United States of America is going to completely implode – and no one will bail us out when it happens.

You want to watch your kids starve to death before your eyes?  Elect Democrats.  Because that would be the kind of “change” you can truly “hope” for.

New Gallup Poll Shows Obama At Lowest Approval Ever

April 12, 2010

This goes along with the CBS and Fox News polls which came out last week, both of which reveal that Obama’s poll numbers plunged to an all-time low AFTER he and the Demagogues I mean Democrats rammed through their ObamaCare in a hard-core partisan ideologue process.

The Gallup chart on their site has the poll numbers pop up at every data point.  It’s worth clicking on so you can see Obama’s plunge in a new dimension.

Riddle me this, Democrats.  If the American people really want your ObamaCrap, as you keep deceitfully claiming, then why have Obama’s poll numbers reached new lows???

Obama’s down to 45% approval, with 48% disapproving.  Obama doesn’t represent America anymore.

We’ve gone from Democrat-to-Republican or Republican-to-Democrat administrations before.  Many times before, in fact.  But we’ve never seen anything like the radical hijacking of our very way of life like what is going on now.

Obama and the Democrats have become tyrants, bent on usurping the will of the American people and imposing their radical partisan agenda on the backs of our children who will never be able to repay the skyrocketing costs.

Vote them out.  Get rid of them.  Make them an abject lesson of history as to what will happen should progressivism ever be allowed to rear its ugly head again.  Or they will literally vote out America and the American way of life.

Obama’s Lies And Hypocrisy In Calling For Reconciliation

March 4, 2010

Barack Obama is a liar and a hypocrite who is fundamentally not to be trusted.  And I can prove that charge with his very own words.

From March 3 via UPI:

Obama outlined his proposal that included several Republican-generated ideas and called on Congress to pass healthcare reform within the next several weeks. By calling for an up-or-down vote, Obama noted that several major bills passed by a simple majority — otherwise known as reconciliation, a parliamentary procedure — during several previous administrations, including that of George W. Bush.

Do you want to know how extreme reconciliation is?  Just ask Barry Hussein:

Obama’s Discarded Wisdom
Breitbart.tv has a terrific two-minute video featuring clips of Barack Obama commenting on the need to build consensus before attempting to enact major social legislation. (If the above link doesn’t work, try this one.) As a public service, we’ve transcribed the Obama comments:

• “My understanding of the Senate is, is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?“–CBS-TV election night interview, Nov. 2, 2004

• “The bottom line is that our health-care plans are similar. The question, once again, is: Who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority, to get the bill to my desk, that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority.”–Change to Win convention, Sept. 25, 2007

• “You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus 1, but you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One–I mean, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on health care. We’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy.”–interview with the Concord (N.H.) Monitor, Oct. 9, 2007

• “You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives–and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion–is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we identify our core base, we throw them red meat, we get a 50-plus-1 victory. But see, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus, because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority.”–Center for American Progress, July 12, 2006

Although the site that originated the video seems to be anti-Obama in orientation (it’s called Naked Emperor News, presumably meant to compare the president to the character in the fable), we must say that most of what Obama said back then is eminently sensible. He explained almost as well as we can why what he is doing now–pushing Congress to “transform the country” precisely via a “50-plus-1” strategy, is so foolish and dangerous.

Observers will disagree over what combination of ideological radicalism, egomania and sheer cynicism is motivating him, but what is clear is that President Obama is quite different from what Candidate Obama advertised.

Which is a polite way of saying he’s a galling hypocrite who deceitfully said one thing, and then actually did the very opposite thing.

Is Obama worse than Karl Rove, on his very own criterion???  If so, than Democrats should despise him more than they do Karl Rove, unless they too are the same sort of hypocrites.  Further, can we now take this to mean that Barack Obama does not believe in government in the same way he demonized Rove???

Is Obama now proving that he is a “government atheist”?

Barack Obama deserves to be reviled based on his very own standard of judgment.

This is a more substantial citation of one of the Obama quotes above:

You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody’s disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can’t, you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We’re not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.

Obama specifically said he would disavow the very strategy that he is now embracing.

Barack Obama is at the very top of a list of vehemently reconciliation-damning quotes from Democrats compiled by Human Events:

Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

Would you like to know why Obama said the founding fathers never intended the thing that he is despicably now trying to do?  Here’s how the founding fathers described the US Senate:

Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great “anchor” of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to “cool” House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.

Obama is now calling for that which he has already publicly recognized as being something that would “change the character of the Senate forever” in a way he acknowledged was “not what the founders intended.”

Can we all just agree that Obama is unAmerican now???

The Republicans were different back in 2005 from the Democrats today when this argument last took place.  And as usual, they were better.  They didn’t follow through using a procedure that was designed to pass a budget (which is what reconciliation was intended to resolve) for a frankly unconstitutional use.   They certainly didn’t use it to place nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy under the thrall of their party, as Democrats are trying to do now.

Have the Republicans ever been hypocrites on the issue of reconciliation?  I’m sure they have.  But that’s besides the point in the sense that the Democrats – if they use the procedure now – stand utterly condemned as liars and hypocrites by their very own words:

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.”

Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority.

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: “If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient — well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so.”

Joe Biden 5/23/05: “I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”

Max Baucus 5/19/2005: “This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

This is a procedure that should simply not be used to pass major legislation which essentially transform nearly a fifth of the economy, and which literally puts our lives and our freedoms on the line.

Major polls such as Rasmussen (44% favoring versus 52% oppose) and Gallup (42% favoring versus 49% opposed) across the board demonstrate that the American people do not want this 2,700 page monstrosity.  The American people not only oppose ObamaCare, but they oppose it by greater margins than that which propelled Obama into the White House.

Just how is it, given that the people clearly do not want this, that the Democrats have any right whatsoever to use a procedure which they themselves demonized to ram it through.

Who Do You Trust? Gallup Differs Wildly With Obama Data On Consumer Spending

February 20, 2010

Tyler Durden presents this well:

Gallup Consumer Spending Data Refutes Commerce Department January Retail Sales Announcement

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/12/2010

As if anyone needed more reasons to doubt the data coming out of our government. Earlier today the Commerce Department reported that January retail sales data came at a nice and bubbly 0.5% sequential increase, and an even nicer and bubblier 4.7% YoY. This presumably beat expectations which were looking for a sequential beat of 0.3%. Yet here comes the much more reliable Gallup data to throw some salt in yet another economic data fabrication. According to daily Gallup consumer polling, which due to its lack of proximity to the government propaganda complex is vastly more reliable, the January average data showed a decline of 5.8% over January 2009 and a whopping 16.3% decline over December. This is beginning to parallel the ever increasing divergence between the ABC consumer comfort index and the UMichigan index which lately seems to only track the average leve of the S&P over the prior month.

The chart below shows the true consumer spending behavior of Americans.

The Gallup methodology is much more accurate than anything that could possible come out of the Commerce Department with its infinite data “adjustments.”

Gallup’s consumer spending measure tracks the average dollar amount Americans report spending or charging on a daily basis, not counting the purchase of a home, motor vehicle, or normal household bills. Respondents are asked to reflect on the day prior to being surveyed and results are presented here in both a 3-day and 14-day rolling average.

And here is how the Census Bureau determines its data:

The advance estimates are based on a subsample of the Census Bureau’s full retail and food services sample. A stratified random sampling method is used to select approximately 5,000 retail and food services firms whose sales are then weighted and benchmarked to represent the complete universe of over three million retail and food services firms. Responding firms account for approximately 65% of the MARTS dollar volume estimate. For an explanation of the measures of sampling variability included in this report, please see the Reliability of Estimates section on the last page of this publication.

Feel free to decide whom you trust.

h/t Geoffrey Batt

Well, of course, I prefer the Obama answer.  He’s only told about 50 gazillion lies.  And the Obama administration has just been so “honest” about their porkulus slush fund that they’ve surely earned our complete trust.

It’s easy to make the numbers look good when you’re lying about the numbers.

The problem is that lies ultimately have a way of coming back to haunt either the person/people making them, or the poor, stupid suckers who believed them.

It looks like Democrats in Congress are going to pay first.  But the American people are going to pay dearly for all the lies they were too stupid and too amoral not to recognize.

It’s Official: Democrats LOVE Their Socialism

February 11, 2010

So what do you say when you find out that 53% of Democrats and 61% of liberals are perfectly at home with socialism?

What do you say when you find out that 17% of RINO Republicans say they’re quite at home with the concept?

I reach for the nearest receptacle that can hold the entire contents of my stomach and hurl.

Redistribute that.

This is what socialism is according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You likey?  Can I bring my family to live in your house, drive your car, and eat all your food?  I mean, I hope you won’t be one of those capitalist pigs and object to me bringing my welfare mom and our 19 snot-nosed kids to spread your wealth around.

There’s a pooh-pooing view that the people who said they were positive to “socialism” simply didn’t understand what the word meant.  On this view, of course, there are a lot of profoundly stupid people in this country – and the overwhelming majority of them are Democrats/liberals.  Take careful note that NONE of these stupid people are Sarah Palin supporters, who are smart enough to know a lot better.

As for me, I tend to take people seriously.  If they claim to be positive toward socialism, I take their words for it.

You might remember Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters using the “S” word and saying she wanted to socialize privately-owned businesses:

You might remember all the hullabaloo when Barack Obama was caricatured as the Joker with the word “socialism” attached to it:

(It wasn’t such a big deal when liberal Vanity Fair did the same thing to George Bush sans the socialism, but the left have always wholeheartedly embraced their hypocritical double standards).

Barack Obama got himself in trouble when he let the tiger out of the bag about how he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Joe the Plumber responded, “That sounds like socialism.”  Oh, how the Democrat spin doctors started to spin and spin and spin some more.  Obama isn’t a socialist, we were assured.  And my, my, anybody who thinks something like that is just talking crazy.

And then Obama got elected, Democrats passed Barry Hussein’s gigantic $3.27 trillion dollars “stimulus,” and the liberal Newsweek was triumphantly asserting:

It’s funny how we do this song and dance: oh, no, Democrats aren’t REALLY socialists!  How on earth can you possibly believe that?

Well, yes, they are.

And now we’ve got the polling results to prove it.

Bottom line: Barry Hussein and the Democrat Party are every single BIT as socialist as they think they can get away with in a nation that would hate socialism if they only had the first freaking clue about our history and about the history of socialism.  They are insinuating mega-doses of socialism into American life as we have never seen before in this country.  And if they thought they could impose more socialism on us, they would do it.  Period.

——————————————————————————————–

February 4, 2010
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans
Majority of Americans positive on capitalism, entrepreneurs, free enterprise, and small business
by Frank Newport

“Democrats and Republicans agree in their ratings of several of the terms, but differ significantly in their ratings of others — in particular, capitalism, the federal government, and socialism.”

“Socialism” was one of seven terms included in a Jan. 26-27 Gallup poll. Americans were asked to indicate whether their top-of-mind reactions to each were positive or negative. Respondents were not given explanations or descriptions of the terms.

Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).

Democrats and Republicans agree in their ratings of several of the terms, but differ significantly in their ratings of others — in particular, capitalism, the federal government, and socialism.

In similar fashion, there is little distinction across ideological groups — conservatives, moderates, and liberals — in the ratings of several of these terms, but more significant differences in response to others, such as big business, the federal government, and socialism.

These differences will be discussed in the sections that follow.

Socialism

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define “socialism” or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans’ reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them — an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to “socialism” across ideological and partisan groups:

  • A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
  • Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.

Capitalism

“Capitalism,” the word typically used to describe the United States’ prevailing economic system, generates positive ratings from a majority of Americans, with a third saying their reaction is negative.

As was the case with “socialism,” there are differences across population segments.

  • Republicans are significantly more positive than Democrats in their reactions to “capitalism,” although majorities of both groups have favorable opinions.
  • Opinions of the word by ideology are divided in an unusual, though modest, way. Conservatives have the highest positive image, followed by liberals. Moderates have somewhat lower positive ratings than either of these groups.

One might expect those with negative attitudes toward capitalism to be more likely than others to have positive attitudes toward socialism. That is indeed the case, but the difference in positive attitudes toward socialism between those with positive and those with negative attitudes toward capitalism is fairly modest: 33% vs. 43%, respectively.

Free Enterprise

Eighty-six percent of respondents rated the term “free enterprise” positively, giving it substantially more positive ratings than “capitalism.” Although in theory these two concepts are not precisely the same, they are in many ways functional equivalents. Yet, underscoring the conventional wisdom that words matter, the public clearly reacts differently to the two terms. Free enterprise as a concept rings more positively to the average American than does the term capitalism.

Strongly positive ratings of free enterprise are generally uniform across both partisan groups, and across the three ideological groups.

Small Business and Big Business

“Small business” is the most positively rated term of the seven included in the list, with a nearly universal positive rating of 95%.

In contrast, Americans were sharply divided when asked to react to the term “big business,” with 49% of respondents rating the term positively and 49% negatively.

This contrast in images, based on whether the adjective “small” or “big” is placed in front of “business,” confirms a number of previous Gallup findings. Americans have a strong tendency to react positively to “small” and negatively to “big” when it describes business entities.

There is remarkably little difference between Republicans and Democrats in their ratings of the images of small and big business. Both partisan groups are overwhelmingly positive about the former, and roughly half of both partisan groups rate the latter positively. The finding that Democrats and Republicans have roughly equal reactions to big business is significant given the usual assumption that Republicans are more sympathetic to large businesses and corporations than are Democrats. These data do not confirm that hypothesis at the rank-and-file level.

All three ideological groups rate small business very positively.

Big business is rated positively by 57% of conservatives. Less than half of both moderates (46%) and liberals (38%) have positive images of big business.

Entrepreneurs

Because “entrepreneurs” are usually by definition associated with start-ups of small businesses, it is not unexpected to find that the term generates nearly the same level of positive reaction as did the term small business.

And, as was the case for small business, there is little distinction in ratings of entrepreneurs across partisan or ideological groups.

The Federal Government

Americans’ reactions to the term “the federal government” are similar to those for “big business,” with about half rating the term positively and half negatively. However, while there are only minimal partisan differences in reactions to “big business,” there are substantial differences in reactions to the federal government, which may reflect the current partisan control of the White House and Congress.

  • Democrats are much more positive about the federal government than are Republicans.
  • Liberals are over twice as likely as conservatives to have a positive image of the federal government, with reactions of moderates in between those of these two groups.

Bottom Line

As most politicians and many in business have learned, the choice of words to describe a concept or a policy can often make a substantial difference in the public’s reaction. The current research confirms that assumption.

“Socialism” is not a completely negative term in today’s America. About a third of Americans respond positively when they hear the term. Some of this reaction may reflect unusual or unclear understandings of what socialism means. Reaction to the term is not random, however, as attested by the finding that positive images are significantly differentiated by politics and ideology.

It is apparent that “free enterprise” evokes more positive responses than “capitalism,” despite the apparent similarity between the two terms.

President Barack Obama made frequent positive references to small business in his recent State of the Union address, perhaps aware of the very positive associations Americans have with that term. In particular, this research underscores the fact that Americans’ image of business can vary substantially, depending on whether it is described as small or big. Along these same lines, it is perhaps not surprising to find that entrepreneurs are held in high esteem by Americans.

The finding that Americans have mixed reactions to the term “the federal government” is not new. Much previous research has shown that at this point in history, a majority of Americans are not enamored with the federal government, particularly the legislative branch.

Looks Like Obama Needs His Own ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ To ‘Hide The Decline” In Approval

December 11, 2009

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” — Phil Jones, junk scientist.

Looks like Barack Obama needs his own equivalent of Phil Jones and Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline of his dwindling support.

December 11th, 2009
Can’t Hide the Decline: Obama Hits New Polling Lows
Posted by Tom Bevan

Excluding the Rasmussen and Gallup overnight tracking polls, there have been seven major national surveys released this week. President Obama has recorded an all-time low job approval rating in six of the seven:

Quinnipiac 46%
Marist 46%
CNN/Opinion Research 48%
Ipsos/McClatchy 49%
CBS News/NY Times 50%
Bloomberg* 54%

Only one poll – FOX News/Opinion Dynamics – showed in increase in President Obama’s job approval rating over the last month. In the current survey, FOX has Obama at 50% approval, up from his all-time low of 46% recorded in last month’s poll.

The net result, of course, is that Obama has also reached an all-time low approval rating in the RCP National Average at 48.9%. Obama initially dropped under the 50% for the first time over Thanksgiving – he spent three days at 49.9% between November 25 and November 28.  After ticking up back over 50% right after the holiday break, Obama went under 50% again on December 4th and has remained there for seven straight days:

I don’t know why Real Clear Politics would exclude Rasmussen and Gallup.  They both say the same thing.  Rasmussen has Obama’s approval at 47% as of December 11.  As does Gallup.

When a president sinks below 50% in the polls, he is no longer speaking for the people.  He loses influence, loses relevance, and loses the ability to lead.  Not that Barry Hussein ever actually had the ability to lead to begin with.

As Dennis Miller put it, Obama has “smaller coattails than a naked midget.”

Obama – the Messiah of the whole wide world – is officially the lowest rated first-year president in American history, according that latest poll by Gallup.

Obama is probably so popular amongst the socialist-redistributionists of the world because they think that Obama will break his nation’s back by agreeing to pay “America’s share” of the $10 trillion wealth redistribution handout to the countries that hate us most in the name of “climate change.”

We already know that the man who said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” is yearning to impose an additional $200 billion per year tax on the American economy, and an additional $1,761 a year tax on American families.

More and more Americans are waking up and realizing that Obama’s hoax and chains actually means freezing in the dark.

They are realizing that the president of “God damn America” wasn’t just speaking in exalted metaphors when he said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”  He truly wants to undermine our lifestyle while he “fundamentally transforms” America.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare just keeps getting worse and worse.  The health care “reform” that was supposed to lower the cost of health care and save the system is going to cost $234 billion more (even in the first ten years, when we tax for ten years, and pay benefits in only six) and will literally cause 1 in 5 hospitals to go broke.

Everywhere you look, Obama and the Democrats are failing.  They are making things worse.  And I mean “Depression” worse.

I’m reminded of something I wrote just before the 2008 election:

Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE.  You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick?  I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win.  The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better.  The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media.  Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.

And the American people are regretting their choice.  Last year, George Bush was reviled as the worst president in history.  But now, only 50% would rather have Obama as president than Bush, and 44% would prefer Bush to Obama.

Which is to say that George Bush is looking better and better (at least compared to Obama), and Barack Obama is looking worse and worse (even when compared to Bush).

Maybe Obama can get global warming scientists to say that the president’s approval is a matter of settled science, and the debate is over.