Posts Tagged ‘jobs’

CEO On Obama’s Own Jobs Council Says Vote For Romney If You Actually Want Any Damn Jobs

November 2, 2012

Ouch, this has got to hurt:

November 1, 20123:53 pm
CEO on Obama Job Council Endorses Romney

Mitt Romney picked up the endorsement of yet another chief executive officer of a major U.S. company—and one who is on President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Intel chief executive officer Paul Otellini has endorsed the Republican nominee.

Despite his presence on the president’s job council, however, Ortellini has criticized the administration in the past pretty strongly, as noted by Human Events. In 2010, the Intel CEO blasted Democrats in Washington at an Aspen Forum event:

Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

Since an unusually sharp downturn accelerated in late 2008, the Obama administration and its allies in the U.S. Congress have enacted trillions in deficit spending they say will create an economic stimulus but have not extended the Bush tax cuts and have pushed to levy extensive new health care and carbon regulations on businesses.

“They’re in a ‘Do’ loop right now trying to figure out what the answer is,” Otellini said.

As a result, he said, “every business in America has a list of more variables than I’ve ever seen in my career.” If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions “the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They’ll invest elsewhere.”

The CEO of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness has basically come to the realization that the Obama administration don’t have one freaking clue about what they’re doing.  He had a chance to take a look under the hood and see what Obama was saying he was going to do – and Otellini didn’t like the idiocy he saw.

Sniff Test: Does It Feel Like Unemployment Has Improved By 6% In Last 60 Days? Reported By Same Government That Said Libya Wasn’t Terrorist Attack?

October 6, 2012

In the past 60 days, the unemployment rate has decreased from 8.3% to 7.8%.  Does it feel like it?  Are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people rejoicing over their new jobs?

The same government that is reporting this news is the same government that stated officially over and over again that the attack from three sides on the US Consulate in Libya – which featured heavy weapons, coordinated indirect fire and multiple waves – was a spontaneous and unplanned affair prompted by sudden outrage over a basically homemade video that had actually been on the internet for the previous six months rather than a “terrorist attack.”

Did you believe that, too?  Are you that seriously stupid???

There was simply no way that the Obama administration did not know that the attack was not a terrorist attack.  For the record, they had actually already specifically labelled it a “terrorist attack” in order to release the critical military and intelligence assets that were needed to deal with the attack.  And other than the fact that Obama was too ignorant to know the truth because he had failed to show up at 60% of his daily intelligence briefings, he simply had to know that he was lying and instructing key administration officials to lie for him.

I can’t state as a categorical fact that the unemployment report is a cynical lie to benefit Obama politically, but what I can state as a categorical fact is that if any president or any administration in American history were going to lie on these numbers, this is the one on both counts to do it.  Because this is a president who has surrounded himself not with skilled, competent professionals, but rather with leftwing ideologues who would protect their messiah.

The Obama Labor Department’s household survey claims that 873,000 people just entered the workforce.  That is the biggest increase in 29 years; with said increase being accompanied by GDP growth of over 5%.  But the employer’s survey, on the other hand, only found that 104,ooo jobs were created, with 10,000 of those being in government.  And GDP growth was just revised downward to 1.3% from 1.7% – which, for the record, was the lowest since January of 2009 when Obama took office.

It’s rather difficult to understand just how we suddenly basically tripled our GDP growth such that we could get these massive jobs figure changes.

I heard on CNBC that 10,000 government jobs in one month is the largest number of government jobs recorded in a one-month period since the statistic started being recorded in 1948.

If these 760,000 extra jobs exist at ALL, NONE OF THEM ARE FULL-TIME, STABLE JOBS.  And that IS a categorical fact because the so-called “real unemployment rate,” the U-6 rate, remained absolutely unchanged at 14.7%:

The broader U-6 rate — which takes into account part-time workers who want full-time work and lots of discouraged workers who’ve given up looking — stayed unchanged at 14.7%. That’s a better gauge of the true unemployment rate and state of the American labor market.

And it’s at such an incredibly critical moment for Obama that this miracle of the job numbers suddenly appears from Obama’s Labor Department.

Something really stinks.

Especially given the fact that the real number of people unemployed increased by 100,000 new lost jobs last month to 23.2 million.  How the hell does that number increase from 23.1 million to 23.2 million and we add 760,000 freaking jobs???

Or how about just the fact that the number of actual jobs recorded (114,000) fails to come CLOSE to the working-age population growth of 206,000?

How about the fact that we just found out that household incomes fell for ANOTHER month under Obama?  And that the American people have lost 8.2% of their income and an average of $5,000 under this “successful” presidency?

How about the fact that the record number of food stamp dependents that Obama created exploded to a whole new level last month?  Or that more people are finding food stamps each month under Obama than are finding jobs?

So Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, smelled that stink and tweeted:

One of the things that failed to pass Welch’s smell test is that he is deeply involved with thirteen major companies, and NONE of them had shown an increase in jobs from the second quarter (the one that saw the downward-revised 1.3% GDP growth).

Obama’s labor secretary Hilda Solis is the same labor secretary who helped Obama to take away the legal rights of secured GM bondholders and give the company to Obama’s union supporters.  Hilda Solis is the same labor secretary who pointed a damn gun at the Boeing Corporation for daring to try to build a new plant in a Republican/right-to-work state.  And we’re not supposed to believe that this woman is more than capable of cooking the books for her boss???

The Obama administration was specifically identified by the DEMOCRAT Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee as the source behind the devastating leaks that had been destroying America’s national security in an attempt to make Obama appear tough on that front.  And we’re not supposed to believe that this administration is more than capable of cooking the books???

Obama has produced fewer and fewer jobs.  He created fewer jobs in 2012 than in 2011, and he’d created fewer jobs in 2011 than he had in 2010.  Frankly, if you want less jobs, elect more Obama.

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

October 3, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five actions are critical:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Biden Says Middle Class Buried Last Four Years. He’s Right: Under Obama, Gas Prices Double, Incomes Plunge, Food Prices Soar And Jobs Vanish.

October 3, 2012

From the mouths of drooling babes comes wisdom?  The words of Joe Biden:

“This is deadly earnest,” Biden said. “How they can justify — how they can  justify raising taxes on the middle class that’s been buried the last four  years.”

Whoever the hell has been president and vice president ought o be fired.  Hell, they ought to be criminally prosecuted and then executed.  What’s that?  Ooops.  That’s me and Obama, isn’t it?  Well, never mind, then!”

Here’s the story:

Biden says middle class ‘buried’ the last 4 years, Republicans pounce
Published October 02, 2012
FoxNews.com

Vice President Biden said Tuesday that the middle class has been “buried the  last four years” — a practically gift-wrapped gaffe that Republicans  immediately grabbed to hammer President Obama on the eve of the first  presidential debate.

Biden made the remark at a campaign stop in Charlotte, N.C., in the course of  slamming Republican tax policies which Democrats claim would cut taxes for the  rich and hike them for the middle class.

“This is deadly earnest,” Biden said. “How they can justify — how they can  justify raising taxes on the middle class that’s been buried the last four  years. How in the lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these  tax cuts?”

Mitt Romney, it turns out, couldn’t agree more with the first part.

He tweeted: “Agree with @JoeBiden, the middle class has been buried the last  4 years, which is why we need a change in November #CantAfford4More.”

Running mate Paul Ryan echoed, saying at a rally in Iowa that “we need to  stop digging” and elect Romney.

Both the Romney campaign and The Republican National Committee got to work  blasting out a clip of the comment Tuesday  afternoon, in what the Obama campaign decried as a “desperate and out-of-context  attack.”

But Republicans used the remark to hammer home claims that Obama’s economic  policies have hurt the middle class, in advance of a debate where the economy is  sure to feature prominently.

An RNC official told FoxNews.com: “Joe Biden said what so many Americans are  feeling every day. For four years, the middle class has been buried by Obama’s  failed policies from higher taxes to more debt which is why he has a difficult  time explaining why he deserves another term in the White House.”

A Romney campaign email also included numerous examples of the middle class  being “buried” during Obama’s term — by debt, by high unemployment and by  falling incomes.

An Obama campaign official countered, blaming Republican policies for  crushing the middle class — well before Obama took office.

“As the Vice President has been saying all year and again in his remarks  today, the middle class was punished by the failed Bush policies that crashed  our economy — and a vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is a return to those  failed policies. With more than five million private-sector jobs created since  2010, the Vice President and President Obama will continue to help the middle  class recover and move the nation forward,” the official said.

The first presidential debate will be held Wednesday in Denver and will focus  on domestic policy.

Fox News’ Nick Kalman contributed to this report.

For the record, ObamaCare is not only a tax hike on the middle class, but in fact the LARGEST tax hike on the middle class in the history of the republic, with 21 new taxes that will disproportionately fall on middle class families.  So, yeah, it’s a valid question.  Given that Obama has “buried the middle class during his four-year regime,” how the hell can he justify imposing all these taxes when he looked the American people in the eye and repeatedly told them he wouldn’t increase their taxes so much as one dime???

But Obama has done far more damage to the middle class than that:

Obama’s War on the Middle Class: Gas Prices Double – Incomes Drop – Jobs Killed
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 1, 2012, 12:38 PM

Barack Obama hates the poor and middle class. (RSG)

Thanks to Barack Obama gas prices doubled, incomes dropped, unemployment soared and the deficit nearly tripled in less than four years. The poor and middle class suffered the most.

The Republican Study Group released this information.

A few points about the chart above, which visualizes these trends all too well. **  According to analysts at Sentier Research, median household income has dropped $4,520, or about one month’s average wages, since President Obama took office. **  The average price for a gallon of gas has more than doubled since January 2009, from under $2 to now almost $4.

More… Obama is a net jobs killer

If that damn chart above were a hail Mary football play, the two wide receivers would have run smack into each other and knock each other silly.  Which is pretty much a metaphor for the entire Obama presidency.

Oh, yeah, by the way, food prices have skyrocketed since Biden’s boss took over (see more here).  Sooo, I guess that kind of sucks for the middle class, too.

And the median household income has plunged by 8.2 percent since Barack Obama and Joe Biden took office.  That can’t be good for the middle class.

And the labor force participation rate has gone down more dramatically under Obama’s failed presidency than any president’s in the history of the republic, and it is now at the lowest level in well over thirty years.  How’s that working for the middle class?  How’s it working for the middle class that if we calcuated the unemployment rate by the same labor participation rate that Bush handed to Obama, unemployment would be measured at 11.6 percent  now???

For every job Obama “adds,” there are FOUR workers who drop out of the workforce.  How’s that working for the middle class?  How is it working for the middle class that there are four million fewer jobs today than there were when Obama took office?

 Last year new start-up businesses were at the lowest level EVER measured in the 25-year history of recording that statistic; this year new start-up businesses plunged by another 24%.  I’m sure the middle class isn’t too happy about that, given that those jobs Obama has destroyed by demonizing the people who create those jobs are the very jobs that the middle class most depends on.

If you’re a middle class retired person, it’s even suckier for you in this “No, no, no, NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America” administration: when Bush left office, a person could put their retirement nest egg of $300,000 into a secure bond and live off of the $1,500 a month interest.  And if things went well, why, you’d leave your children and grandchildren a nice sum to remember you by in fulfillment of the American Dream to give your children better off than you were.  Now, thanks to Obama’s QE1, QE2, Operation Twist and then let’s do QE3, that same nest egg gives you $200 a month and you’re pretty well screwed, aren’t you?

Finally, Biden screwed up so badly trying to demonize Romney for increasing taxes on the middle class, which is an outright lie.  Name the Republican who has offered a plan to increase taxes on the middle class.  Versus Obama-Biden, who in fact have passed the largest tax increase on the middle class in the history of the republic.  Obama and Biden have both slandered Republican policies by asserting that tax cuts result in low revenues and therefore according to some liberal think tank that used radically leftist presuppositions, if the rich didn’t get their taxes hiked the middle class wold therefore have to somehow pay more taxes.  That is a lie.  That is a provable lie.  If you go back to the Bush tax cuts, you will find that tax revenues increased massively.  Even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge that tax revenues increased just as Republicans said they would.  If you go back to the Reagan tax cuts, you will see that tax revenues increased massively.  If you go back to John F. Kennedy’s tax cuts, you will see that tax revenues increased massively; and if you go all the way back to Calvin Coolidge’s tax cuts, you will see that tax revenues increased massively.  Liberals deny reality.  They cannot even begin to comprehend the real world.

It’s stuff like this that makes the REAL middle class want Obama and Biden to get the hell out of Washington.  Middle class voters favor Romney by 14 points (55 to 41 percent).  And Democrats trying to say that middle class voters favor Obama would be like Republicans saying that female grad students who demand that government pay for all their birth control favor Romney.

Government Accounting Office Says Obama Circumvented The LAW With His Gutting Of The Welfare Work Requirement

September 6, 2012

Not that Obama or Democrats give a damn, but Barack Obama broke the law that he clearly considers his divine emperorship to be completely above:

GAO: Obama Admin Circumvented Law with Welfare Waivers
By Matt Cover
September 5, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration circumvented federal law in announcing it would waive the work requirements in welfare, a GAO review found, saying that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should have submitted the new policy to Congress for review.

At issue is whether the policy falls under the purview of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that requires all administrative changes of policy or regulation be submitted to Congress for review and possible disapproval.

The GAO, in a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Senate Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said that the July 12 change in policy falls under the CRA and should have been submitted to Congress for approval.

“We find that the July 12 Information Memorandum issued by HHS is a statement of general applicability and future effect, designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy with regard to TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the formal name for welfare],” GAO said in its Sept. 4 letter.

“[T]he Information Memorandum is subject to the requirement that it be submitted to both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect.”

In other words, HHS must formally submit the letter to Congress and the Comptroller General before it can legally issue the waivers to the requirement that a certain portion of welfare recipients work.

GAO noted that it had not determined whether or not HHS had the legal authority to waive the work requirements in the first place, just that it must follow its legal obligations under the CRA.

HHS had contended that it had complied with the law when it notified both House and Senate committees of its new policy July 12, an argument GAO rejected saying that informal notice did not satisfy the law.

“Finally, while HHS may have informally notified the Congressional committees of the issuance of the Information Memorandum, informal notification does not meet the reporting requirements of the CRA.”

According to GAO, federal law requires that the government submit any proposed changes in federal regulations or rules to Congress, so that it may act to formally disapprove and stop the rule from taking effect. GAO found that any rule that is meant to “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy” must be submitted to Congress before it can take effect.

In July, HHS issued a memorandum to states announcing it would begin waiving the welfare-to-work requirements for those states who wanted to change their current welfare-to-work programs, including the definitions of what qualifies as work and how states calculate who is and who is not working.

Camp, whose office released the GAO finding, said that HHS’ waiver policy amounted to an “end-run” around Congress.

“Despite his latest attempt at an end-run around Congress, this GAO report clearly states that the Administration must submit this rule to Congress for review before it can take effect. Work requirements were the centerpiece of welfare reform, and we cannot allow that progress to be undone,” Camp said in a statement Tuesday.

On the other hand, you can kind of understand why Obama would gut the welfare work requirement, given that his presidency and his policies are clearly completely incapable of actually creating any damn jobs for welfare recipients to actually have.

It’s just a lot easier for a socialist like Obama to create a nation of needy and disabled people desperately voting “Democrat” in order to get their next welfare check.  Which is why Obama is literally creating an America in which more people go on disability than get jobs.

Obama is adding $6 trillion in debt – and he’s only just getting STARTED bankrupting America.

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

August 20, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blaming Republican ‘Obstructionism’ For America’s Economic Problems Is A Demonic Lie. Let’s Look At The REAL Obstructionists.

June 11, 2012

A picture is worth a thousand words.  So here is a picture of our blithering messiah unable to understand reality:

“The private sector’s doing fine.”

“Michael Eden is the Grand Poobah over all of the spacetime Multiverse.”

Both statements are equally true.  Or rather equally false.

Even back in April when Obama was claiming that his policies were working, the fact was that median wages for the middle class were plummeting far more than they were when Obama was demonizing George Bush over the decline in median wages.  Median wages have declined 10.2% under Obama’s regime.  It’s down by $4,300 – way over TWICE as much as it was under Bush.  Since then the bottom has fallen out of Obama’s claims, with not only the GDP revised downward, but job figures for the preceding three months likewise being revised downward.

“Revised downward” is actually a good metaphor for the entire Obama presidency: fully 63 out of the last 64 “official” jobs reports have been revised downward under this propaganda presidency.  You have to go to North Korea today to find a government that is lying to its people more than our government under Obama.

Democrats are celebrating Obama’s 27 months of job growth.  They wouldn’t be abject hypocrites had they not demonized George Bush for 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Normally, when a president calls a press conference he has something major to announce; he’s actually accomplished something.  In this case, Obama calls a press conference to do nothing more than grandstand and continue his “the one and only person who must be above blame is the president – unless that president happens to be a Republican in which case he is the only person who must be blamed.”

I remember coming across a statement from the Soviet Union not long before its collapse in which Soviet big government totalitarians actually blamed seventy-two years of bad weather after their policies resulted in perpetual famine – having executed all their other viable scapegoats.  That’s the true audacity of hope: hope that the benighted people will continue to believe the utterly asinine lies of the left even after it is beyond obvious that they have failed.

While blaming Bush is a fountain that will never run out as long as Obama has one last breath of air in his lungs, apparently it is worn out enough that Obama had to find new scapegoats, such as Europe (but all Spain and France and Greece are saying is that they want to be like Obama and make other people pay for their reckless government spending) and the Republican House for refusing to pass everything Obama wants.  Never mind that explorers had actually discovered the continent of Europe even previous to the Bush years and never mind that when the U.S. economy went from wonderful to terrible during Bush’s final two years in office the Democrats not only controlled the House but also controlled the Senate as well.  And never mind that Obama had complete control of the government for his first two years given that he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to go with a massive majority in the House – and wasted it passing his soon-to-be-found unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate over an angry nation that overwhelmingly knew it was unconstitutional.

 The unemployment rate was 4.4% when the Democrat Party swept the Congress with Nancy Pelosi ruling over the House and Harry Reid running the Senate.  What about Democrat Party obstructionism?  Regarding bipartisan compromise, Nancy Pelosi, the physical embodiment of fingernails raking across a chalkboard, had this to say when she was asked when the Democrats would produce their own plan while demonizing Bush’s plan: “Never. Is that soon enough for you?”  For the official record, Pelosi was right: Democrats never DID produce any kind of plan while successfully filibustering Bush.  The Democrats governed entirely by demagoguing Bush over everything under the sun and blocking him in everything he tried to do.

By the way, Barack Obama was one of those obstructionist Democrats.  On the debt ceiling, Obama took a hard-core position and not only voted against it, but demonized Bush as a failed leader for needing one.  And this is the same cynical lying weasel who has since demanded the three largest debt ceiling increases in the history of the entire human race.

The Democrats actually blockaded Bush time and time again.  Do you know why our economy collapsed in 2008?  You can answer the question in three words: “Fannie and Freddie.”  As much as Democrats want to demonize the private sector and George Bush, the fact of the matter is that Fannie and Freddie – which controlled over half of the mortgages in America – were the VERY FIRST entities to collapse and triggered the collapse of firms such as Lehman Brothers for the primary reason that Lehman suddenly found itself holding Fannie Mae-bundled mortgage backed securities that were suddenly known to be toxic.  Barney Frank in 2005 brushed off a question of whether the government’s push to increase home-ownership rates might result in people buying more home than they could afford and inflating the housing market by barking, “We’ll deal with that problem if it happens.”  But we find that not only would Democrats NOT deal with it, but they wouldn’t let Bush or Republicans deal with it either.

We find that this crisis created by Democrat policies began to build not under George Bush but under and in fact because of Bill Clinton late in his presidency:

“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

In that year 1999 you had financial experts clearly warning that this new DEMOCRAT policy was going to have a bad end:

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

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

George Bush began trying to seriously deal with the looming housing bubble which was guaranteed to create a mortgage meltdown as early as 2003:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

You can read how Barney Frank responded in that same article:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

We find that George Bush tried not once, not twice, but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to their collapse.  Did you read that?  SEVENTEEN TIMES.

John McCain warned that America was on the verge of an economic meltdown created by Democrats in 2006.  He said:

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

And it came to pass exactly as John McCain warned.  And now we KNOW who would actually pay for it: YOU.

Even the New York Times FINALLY began to be concerned over the impact of a collapse by Fannie and Freddie as these words from July 2008 document (I cited that in a piece available here):

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.

Just before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac completely went belly up and started the economic wrecking ball crashing into America, Barney Frank as the powerful Democrat Chairman of the Financial Services Committee had this to say:

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

I document the process by how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated here, explaining:

[That] the Los Angeles Times on May 31, 1999 describes how this process turned into a bubble, as more begat more, and then more and more begat more and more and more:

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, in their role as Government Sponsored Enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased. What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Here’s the process:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, an intelligent observer would note a primary conflict: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet at the same time they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency. What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them. This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what allowed the toxic instruments that have been sold across the world to proliferate. And then to explode. It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments. This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’. And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

And it was Democrats, not Bush, and not Republicans, who were all over this disaster that destroyed our economy in 2008.

We were led by a pathologically dishonest media to believe that Republicans had created this mess, when it fact it had been Democrats. And so we gave the very fools who destroyed our economy total power.

And what have they done in the two years since?

They made bad far, far worse.

I added the last link to point out that we’re looking at a $600 TRILLION problem and Barack Obama’s supporters are COMPLETELY BEHIND that $600 trillion problem.

You find that Barack Obama took more money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a shorter period of time than any politician in history.  Fellow Democrat Chris Dodd’s money came over twenty years; Obama took all of his money from the GSEs in just three years.  And Lehman Brothers and AIG that led the private sector into collapse?  Yeah, Obama took more money from THEM than anybody else, too.

If you believe the Democrat Party, the fact that Fannie and Freddie controlled over half of all the mortgages in the United States, and the fact that Fannie and Freddie went completely bankrupt and precipitated the financial crash of 2008, and the fact that economic experts predicted Fannie and Freddie would cause an economic collapse, and the fact that even the New York Times admitted concern over a “torrent of worries” caused by Fannie and Freddie’s massive exposure shortly prior to the economic collapse, all somehow go to prove that Fannie and Freddie were in no way responsible for the 2008 economic collapse.  As insane as that is, that is what they have to say.

Let me put it bluntly: if you don’t understand that Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s 2008 collapse created the financial crisis, you are a fool.  If you don’t acknowledge that the Democrat Party engineered that collapse and then refused to allow George Bush or anyone else to reform these massive GSEs to prevent that collapse from happening, you are a liar.  Which is why I routinely label Democrats as lying fools.

Democrats essentially said, “We’re going to destroy America and then we’re going to use our mainstream media propagandists to blame the Republicans for what we did.  The extent of the historic bias in the media is astonishing.

So Obama and the Democrats continually demonize Republican obstructionism and the mainstream media refuses to put that story into any kind of context of DEMOCRAT obstructionism.  Why is it a valid charge that the Republican House should be blamed as “obstructionist” given that DEMOCRATS had both the House AND the Senate when the economy went bad under Bush?  When have you heard about such a challenge in the media?  Democrats have blamed Republicans and Bush for four years now about destroying the economy.  Where has the media ever even so much as questioned that premise, let alone provide the facts I document for you here?  Further, Obama and the Democrats – in trying to demonize Republicans for their “obstructionism” – are demanding that Republicans vote for what is essentially the son of the son of Obama’s first massive and massively failed stimulus.  Remember that first massive stimulus that was officially $862 billion but which the CBO said would actually cost $3.27 TRILLION when it was all said and done?  Remember that second stimulus program for $447 billion that will likewise cost far more than that?  How many more stimulus programs should Obama get?  How many trillions of dollars in government spending is enough?  Have you heard these questions from ABC, NBC or CBS???

Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority leader, made an interesting observation.  He basically said, “The president keeps accusing the Republicans of wanting America to fail.  That’s not true.  If Republicans wanted America to fail, they would SUPPORT the president and his failed policies.”

Because they ARE failed policies.  They have wildly failed and they have even failed according to Obama’s own White House.  Obama’s team predicted that if Obama’s $862 billion stimulus was enacted unemployment would not go over 8%.  They were clearly wrong.  Obama again and again promised that his stimulus was filled with “shovel ready jobs,” only to later laugh and say that it wasn’t as “shovel-ready as we expected.”  That admission after having made repeated claims that it WAS creating all kinds of shovel-ready jobs.  Is the fact that Obama just admitted that his entire economic policy was based on lies a joke to you?  And when Obama demanded yet another of the same massively expensive policy failure as before he merely made the same bogus promises in slightly different words.  Are you really that stupid?  The Obama team predicted that unemployment would be under 6% by now if his FIRST stimulus passed, let alone his SECOND massive stimulus and now the THIRD one that he demands.  In fact unemployment is a full point higher right now than team Obama predicted it would be if we had NOT passed his stimulus, which is to say that by Obama’s own math his administration was WORSE than nothing along with costing us trillions of dollars we now can’t get back.

And what is the Democrats response to that?  A fantasy story based on counterfactual claims: if we hadn’t passed the stimulus things would have been worse.  Don’t remember what he said back then because they turned out to be a sack of lies; remember our new lies now.  And if George Bush hadn’t been president, space aliens would have destroyed the entire human race.  Prove that one wrong.  Obama’s own projections prove that to be false; but the lies they keep a changin’ because that’s what hope and change means – keep telling changing lies and hope the people buy them.

We have now repeatedly found that EVERYTHING Obama promised and predicted has been a LIE.  Obama has failed across the board.  Now he’s either telling the same lying predictions about his leadership all over again or replacing them with new lying predictions.

If you want to know what is “obstructing” jobs in America, look no further than Barack Obama and the Democrat Part and their anti-business, anti-growth policies.

The biggest “obstruction” of all facing America is the one shoved up Democrats’ rear ends.  Sorry to end on such a crass note, but the truth is invariably an unpleasant thing where Democrats are concerned.

Hypocrite Alert: The Same Nancy Pelosi Who DEMONIZED Bush And 52 Consecutive Months Of Job Creation Hails Obama’s 27 Months As Wonderful

June 2, 2012

Nancy Pelosi trotted out today and had this to say:

Leader Pelosi. Good morning. Nice to see you all here – you missed the crowd of visitors to the Capitol. It’s pretty exciting when they come where, what a thrill.

With today’s jobs report it is clear that we have work to do. Although this is the 27th month of increased, continued job increases in our economy it is certainly not enough. It’s clear from that jobs number that we have work to do. We know it and the American people know it and American families across the country know it.

Wow.  “This is the 27th month of increased, continued job increases,” says Pelosi.  You’ve got to praise a president who can boast that kind of a record.

But a president who has – quite literally – TWICE THAT RECORD?  You should demonize that president.

George Bush had 52 months of “increased, continued job increases.”  As US News and World Report points out:

“Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years”, declared the Washington Post earlier this week. And while the story grudgingly acknowledged the 52-straight months of job growth, it dismissed any economic gains as the ephemeral product of the housing bubble and wild-spending consumers. Except … that worker productivity — the most important long-term indicator of the core health and competitiveness of an economy — has risen at a really impressive 2.6 annual rate during the Bush years vs. 2.0 percent for Clinton and 1.6 percent for Reagan. (That factoid from the Wall Street Journal.) This is important stuff. It’s one big reason why the World Economic Forum says the U.S. has the most competitive economy in the world. The economic rebound after the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts was no mirage.

Okay, 52 straight months of job growth under Bush.  Let me get out my calculator, because this is math that is clearly FAR beyond any Democrat’s ability to perform: 52 months versus 27 months.  Which is more?

Yep.  I just confirmed it.  Bush’s 52 consecutive months of job growth dwarfs Obama’s 27 months.

And Bush also gave America worker productivity that dwarfed Bill Clinton’s while giving us virtually the same unemployment rate as Clinton (5.2% unemployment under Bush).

I could do also do the math to show that Bush’s unemployment rate is so much better than Obama’s it’s not even funny.  But that would be like rocket science explained to ants for Democrats.  So I won’t bother.  But if you look at the monthly unemployment figures and do the math that Democrats are clearly too depraved to do, Obama’s average unemployment rate through May 2012 is 9.2%.

So the guy with the 9.2% unemployment rate who promised America that unemployment would be under 6% by now if we passed his massive stimulus is saying that the guy with the 5.2% unemployment rate is to blame for his abject failure.

It actually gets considerably worse – because even those monthly unemployment figures are deceitful.  Labor participation has plummeted abysmally and catastrophically under Obama; millions of workers have simply given up bothering to even try to look for a job and 88 million working age Americans aren’t working during this failed presidency.  If we were to calculate Obama’s unemployment rate by the SAME participation rate that Bush’s last unemployment figure was calculated under, Obama would actually have an 11.4% unemployment rate.

That’s in the weeds particularly for Democrats’ whose ideological brains are somewhat smaller than cockroackes’, but the U-6 unemployment rate that many say is this broader “real” rate is 14.8% right now.

Job creation is way down.  The unemployment rate is up.  The market just crashed to correction levels (defined as dropping by 10% from the high) with the Dow losing 278 and the Nasdaq losing 80.  The last two months of “job gains” were downwardly revised. The GDP sucks the big one with a downwardly revised 1.9%.  And speaking of “revising” EVERYTHING keeps getting revised down under this propaganda presidency.

Well, at least Obama has Nancy Pelosi to keep singing his praises.  It’s a way-off tune shrieking cackle that belongs in the padded part of the psycho ward, but at this point Obama has to take praise anywhere he can get it.

Unemployed Workers Losing Their Federal Unemployment Benefits ‘To Pay For’ Obama’s Bogus Jobless Number Claims

May 16, 2012

This is just too funny.  Read for an example of liberals hanging themselves on their own petard:

Obama Voters Losing Jobless Benefits Due to the Manipulation of Workforce Numbers
May 11, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Michael in Momence, Illinois. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Thanks a lot, Rush, first-time caller. I’m calling because I was at the unemployment office just yesterday, and they have tables there where people fill out the paperwork that they have –RUSH: Wait, wait, wait whoa, whoa, whoa, just a second. I need you to go slow here.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: Why were you at the unemployment office? It may seem like an obvious question, but I want to know, why were you at the unemployment office?

CALLER: I was filing for benefits.

RUSH: Filing for unemployment benefits. Okay.

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: Then you said on the tables…

CALLER: They had tables set out for people to fill out paperwork.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: All right. On this table was a few copies of a news release, as it said across the top of the paper, and what the news release was saying was: Due to the lowering of the unemployment rate and the improving economy, that federal extensions for unemployment benefits were being canceled. So it’s not 99 weeks anymore.

RUSH: Well, this was in Momence, Illinois?

CALLER: Kankakee County office.

RUSH: Kankakee County. So you went in there —

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: — and they’re touting the economy roaring back so much, unemployment rate has gone down, the economy is improving, so federal extensions for unemployment benefits are being canceled?

CALLER: That’s correct.

RUSH: I had not heard that.

CALLER: That was news to me as well.

RUSH: Well, but was there anything in this about 99 weeks, or are you just saying that because you know it’s 99 weeks that’s the max?

CALLER: Well, actually my brother’s well below his 99 weeks. He called to verify and he said he’s gonna be kicked off as of next week.

RUSH: Even before he reaches his 99 weeks?

CALLER: Yeah, 99 weeks doesn’t mean anything anymore.

RUSH: I have not heard this anywhere. Have you heard this anywhere, that people are just being told the economy is doing so well and unemployment is going up or down, employment’s going up, that your benefits are being canceled?

CALLER: Not mine personally yet, but that’s what’s going on.

RUSH: Well, but you’re just starting. Illinois’s unemployment rate hasn’t gone down. Illinois’s unemployment rate is skyrocketing.

CALLER: Well, apparently they seem to think it’s pretty good.

RUSH: Well. This doesn’t make any sense.

CALLER: Well, Rush, here’s part of my question, is what happens to these people now that they’re shoved up the unemployment rolls? Are these people being counted?

RUSH: That’s why this doesn’t make any sense. In an election year, you add people to the unemployment rolls. You take care of ’em. You extend their benefits. You make sure they know you’re doing — this makes no sense. This is like a Romney prank.

CALLER: You know what you probably could do, and maybe your staff could do it, maybe go to the Illinois unemployment website and click on news releases. They do release news on the website.

RUSH: Well, I’ll assign one of the 55 people doing research to that. Snerdley is asking me, “Could this be how they’re lowering the numbers?” Am I the only one that sees this? Again, I ask that question. Okay, here are the two possibilities on the table. Michael, I was joking about the 55 people doing research. I was being very, very facetious. Thanks for the call. Here’s what we have. A guy goes in to the Illinois unemployment office in Kankakee County. News releases all over the tables where you fill out your forms: Because the unemployment rate is coming down and the economy is recovering, unemployment benefits are being canceled.

The only thing not said on the release is, “Get a job.” I don’t know what canceled means. They’re not canceling everybody’s benefits. That I know. But it’s just what this guy saw. So here are the two possibilities on the table. Snerdley’s theory is that this is how they’re getting the unemployment rate down. Okay, the benefit of that is what? The unemployment rate going down, millions and millions and millions of Americans unemployed, who else is gonna see this? The only people that are gonna see this are people going to the unemployment office. Why do you go to unemployment office? To get your bennies. To get your benefits.

You walk in to get your benefits. You read a news release that says: Sorry, you’re out of luck, get a job. This is how we’re lowering the unemployment rate. And this lowering the unemployment rate is gonna redound to Obama by getting him more votes because we’re gonna spread the news the economy is recovering, unemployment’s going down, but nobody is gonna see that unless somebody from that office called here like just happened. On the other hand, what is the real-world effect of this? People who are on unemployment are in there, I’d say the majority of them are genuine, they’re not scamming the system. Some are in there trying to scam it, happens, but most people are in there ’cause they’re out of work and they want some unemployment benefits. They read something in there: Sorry, the economy is getting so good, the unemployment rate is falling so much, that benefits are canceled, or extension benefits are canceled.

In an election year, Obama turning away voters? I can’t believe this. This is like a Republican trick. If I didn’t know better I’d say Andrew Breitbart had been in the Kankakee County, Illinois, unemployment office. I mean here you have hapless people with nowhere else to go, out of work, going in to sign up for unemployment and they read something from the regime that says, “No benefits, the economy is doing too good.” In an election year you want as many people on unemployment benefits as possible. You want dependents. You want people thanking you for making it possible they can eat. Snerdley, you’re off the reservation. Snerdley is now suggesting this is how they’re getting rid of white working class. They don’t know who’s gonna walk in there. The news release doesn’t say: Only to be read if you’re white working class. Doesn’t say that. Everybody’s gonna see this. According to the BLS, the Illinois unemployment rate is 8.1, so it is down. This doesn’t make any sense. And again, anybody can call here and say anything, but the guy sounded legit.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, I have the press release that the guy who went to the Illinois unemployment office saw. I’m holding it right here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. I have it. And he was right. Now, here’s the deal. Economic Growth Strong Enough to Close Temporary Unemployment Insurance Program.” That’s the headline. “Long-Term Unemployed Should Visit IllinoisJobLink.com — Chicago: Falling unemployment rates and steady economic growth means an extended unemployment insurance program ends this month, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) said today.

“The expiring federal program…” By the way, the date of this thing is May 2nd. “The expiring federal program affects individuals who have collected benefits for more than 79 weeks. The Extended Benefit (EB) program ends May 12 because specific economic factors set forth by federal officials were met, such as the falling unemployment rate. Illinois EB claimants will be notified via mail and e-mail. Final payments will be issued during the two weeks following May 12. No further unemployment program exists for EB exhaustees.”

You ever heard that word: “Exhaustees”? So here’s the deal. “More than 200,000 long-term jobless Americans will lose their unemployment checks this week, when eight states roll off the federal Extended Benefits program. Nearly half of them live in California, and the rest reside in Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Colorado, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Texas. The federal Extended Benefits program has provided the jobless with up to 20 weeks of unemployment checks after they’ve run through their state and their federal emergency benefits, which together last up to 79 weeks.

“But the Extended Benefits program is expiring throughout the country” when your state unemployment rate drops. So Obama… What’s happening here, I actually kind of like it now. Now, wait! Obama is stabbing himself in the back here: 200,000 Americans are losing their unemployment. There’s no more 99 weeks in these eight states, and it’s gonna be more states. As the regime keeps reporting the unemployment rate going down, they are at the same time kicking their own voters off the unemployment rolls!

That’s what’s happening here.

So the caller last hour who went in for the first time to sign up won’t be eligible for 99 weeks anymore. He’s gonna get 79 weeks is what’s happening here. The fed’s 20-week extension to take you to 99 weeks is ending because the unemployment rate has fallen to a level previously agreed to by federal officials. This all goes back to deals made during the debt limit arguments. But, see, here’s the thing. Now, the Democrats politically… Keep a sharp eye on this. This is how you are on the cutting edge here, folks.

Because while everybody’s talking about Romney and gay marriage and all this, the Democrats are already trying to blame the end of unemployment extensions on the Republicans because this was part of the debt ceiling deal last August. Now, this is a Democrat deal, but they’re gonna blame the Republicans for it. And it wouldn’t be happening if there was an honest unemployment rate being reported! That’s the great thing here. Well, I say “great thing.”

The funny thing is the regime is stabbing itself in the back because they’re faking the unemployment number. Unemployment is not going down because people are finding jobs; unemployment is going down because the universe of jobs is shrinking: The labor force participation rate. Eighty-eight million Americans aren’t working! Sixteen million of them make up the 8.1% unemployment number. When you have a smaller universe of jobs against which you’re calculating the unemployed, the percentage is gonna go down.

The percentage of two-out-of-ten is 20%. Two-out-of-15 is less than 20%. What they’re doing is lowering the universe number so that the percentage of people reported to be out of work goes down, but it isn’t true. The unemployment number… Everybody admits this. Everybody knows that what the regime is doing is jimmying the numbers because they’re shrinking the universe. There aren’t any new jobs being created, certainly not enough to lower the unemployment rate. So Obama’s voters are getting the shaft.

Somebody just said, “If fewer people had given up working, they’d get their benefits.” No. The regime is just… Maybe this what people don’t understand. Maybe this is where I failed to communicate. The administration is just arbitrarily telling us that there are two to 2-1/2 million fewer jobs today than there were when Obama took office. They’re just reporting whatever number they have to make up to make the unemployment rate drop. The number of people in the labor force is not a factual statistic.

The regime is making it up in order to get the unemployment rate down. Because Obama’s calculation here, obviously, is: “When the unemployment rate goes down, people think jobs are being created and people are going back to work. So we can easily sell an economic recovery.” But the problem is, even when that number went from 8.2% to 8.1% (did you notice?), the media were not excited about it. I was amazed. The media reporting it was actually accurate. They told us the truth.

The number is going down not because of new jobs being created. The number’s going down because more and more people are out of the workforce. And people started scratched their heads, “How can that be? If more and more people are out of the workforce, how can the number go down?” Right! Exactly! Now you get it! In the old days, when America was really America, the unemployment rate went down because people were being hired. Now the unemployment rate is going down because people not only are not being hired, but they’re not even looking for work!

And then beyond that, they’re not even being counted as looking for work. So because of, essentially, an artificially low unemployment number, Obama voters are losing their unemployment benefits. This is what… When the guy told the story, this is what I couldn’t believe. That’s why I thought, “If Andrew Breitbart was still alive, he’d print this press release and put it in all these unemployment on offices.” (laughing) Because like this guy called me…

This guy called and he was shocked. “My benefits have been cut because they say the economy is roaring back!” He knows the economy is not roaring back. He knows the economy is not robust. He can’t find a job. Where is he? He’s in the unemployment office! Why? Because he can’t find a job. But then he gets there and he reads about how good the economy is doing and that his benefits are gonna get cut. And if he had any intention of voting for Obama, I guarantee he’s gonna be scratching his head, ’cause all Obama’s out there doing is talking about all the benefits that you can get.

So you’re gonna have to find a way, you people, to get over to the Social Security department and get on Social Security disability to make up for your unemployment benefit cuts. Obama voters are being punished because of Obama’s jiggering of the figures. Their jobless benefits aren’t being cut. They’re being “seasonally adjusted” is what’s happening here. The unemployment rate is being seasonally adjusted and people are losing their benefits. This is priceless. This is priceless!

This poor guy goes in to get his unemployment benefits because he can’t find work, and he gets a notice here that the economy is doing so great that his benefits are being cut.

He says, “This doesn’t make any sense. I gotta call Rush and find out what’s going on!”

And so he did.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So there’s no question what’s gonna happen here. Let me put this in perspective for you. It’s actually 239,000 people, this will end it. I just want to close the loop here. Two-hundred-and-thirty-nine thousand people this weekend are losing their unemployment benefits, the people at 99 weeks. Eight states, unemployment rate has fallen enough that nobody will get benefits after 79 weeks. The federal extension to 99 weeks ends in these eight states. It’s part of the debt limit deal last August. Don’t think Obama doesn’t know about this. They’ve made a calculation. What you are next going to hear intensely is that this is a Republican plan. They forced Obama to go along with this. This was part of the deal to raise the debt limit last year.

So next week, when this starts to hit, when people show up and sign up for their extension and they don’t get them, there’s gonna be hell to pay. Next week, if not this week on the Sunday shows, is when the all-out assault on the Republicans being responsible for this is going to hit. I have no doubt in my mind it is a calculated political move, much like the student loan interest rate was. And to refresh your memory on that. In 2007, the Democrats ran everything that year. They ran the House and the Senate, Bush in the White House of course. The Democrats decided to cut the student loan interest rate in half. And then also the Democrats in the House and the Senate voted to restore the student loan interest rate, at its current level, in July of this year, which would have the effect, the impression would be that the student loan interest rate is doubling in July of this year. When all that was happening was, it was being restored to where it was in 2007 when the Democrats cut it.

The Democrats cut it in 2007 and plan to restore it in 2012 as a presidential election issue. They of course couldn’t know in 2007 whether the Democrats have the White House or not, but they were pretty confident, given the country hated Bush and the media was drumming up — they figured it was gonna be Hillary in 2007. So as an insurance policy, they have this student loan interest rate doubling, and of course if they’re running the show in 2012, when it goes back up, they can just themselves get rid of it, quietly, no attention being paid to it. But now the news is out, the student loan interest rate’s gonna double. The Republicans want your student loan interest rates to increase, when the Republicans have nothing to do with it. All the while Boehner was actually trying to pass legislation to keep the student loan interest rate where it is. Same thing’s happening here with unemployment.

The 99-week extensions end during a presidential year. So the calculation Obama has made is really quite simple. He wants voters to be without their unemployment during an election year so that he can blame the Republicans for it and profit from it. So no money, no food, no job is how Obama benefits, according to his calculation. According to his strategizing, his and Axelrod’s, the Chicago way: Let’s make people hurt. Let’s bring some pain. Let’s calculate when it would be best for their unemployment benefits to end, with no extension. We’ll do that in an election year and blame it on the Republicans.

That’s what’s gonna happen, and then sometime next week I’m gonna be deluged with phone calls from you, “Rush, why don’t the Republicans…” and I’m gonna say, as I’ve been saying since 1988, “I don’t have the foggiest idea why the Republicans don’t do X in response to it.” But there’s Obama in Seattle last night: You know, sometimes I forgot how bad the recession is. I wonder if Obama forgot the recession ended three years ago, by his own calculation.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: According to CNNMoney.com: “By the beginning of September, the [unemployment] benefits will disappear in another seven states, leaving Alaska as the sole” state to offer extended unemployment benefits. So what this means is that, by September, no state will have extended unemployment benefits. That’s happening in an election year. It is going to be incumbent on Romney and the Republicans to explain why this is happening. What timing is this? I’m glad that guy from Illinois called us, because this is major.

Every state, by the time we get to September (except Alaska), will lose its extended unemployment benefits. Meaning nobody beyond 79 weeks. All of those between 79 and 99 get zapped. And the Republicans are gonna get blamed for it, and it’s gonna be up to Romney and the Republicans to explain why this is happening, who did it, and what’s behind it. And you know what Obama knows? Obama knows: How can the Republicans come out and say, “Well, unemployment rate isn’t really 8.1%. It should be much higher”?

I mean, you can say it, but who wants to talk about how rotten the economy is? They should, but it’s almost too complicated to try to explain in 30- or 60-second TV ad. Now, the deal ending the 20-week extension from 79 to 99 weeks was done in February of this year. It was not… I mistakenly said that it was part of the debt deal in August. It was done in February of this year. So it’s a campaign-year tactic.

END TRANSCRIPT

We keep hearing about how wonderful Obama is for the economy from Democrats.  I mean, thank whatever these secular humanists thank – Obama the messiah I suppose – that Obama has been such a gift to America.  But if the economy is better as liberals keep saying, then of course we should end all these unemployment benefits that were intended to help people stave off a disastrous economy which was all Bush’s fault and is clearly gone now because messiah has been president for nearly four years.  But millions of Americans are suffering more now than they EVER were under Bush.  But we must robotically refuse to acknowledge reality because reality would hurt Obama and we can’t do that.

And so hurting people are more screwed than ever.

What is good is that people are finally starting to comprehend the ruination that is Obamanation.  The polls are not looking good for this teleprompter reading turd.  And liberals are growing increasingly terrified that Obama won’t be able to pull out re-election no matter HOW many fundraisers he attends relative to the previous five presidents combined before him.

New Obama Ad Demonizes Romney For Jobs Destroyed During Romney’s Bain Capital Days: BUT CONSIDER WHAT OBAMA DID TO 20,000 DELPHI WORKERS

May 15, 2012

Obama, thy title is “Hypocrite-in-Chief.”

Bain under Mitt Romney invested in Staples, which had 89,000 employees as of Dec. 31, 2010.  Bain under Romney invested in Sports Authority, which had 15,000 employees as of July 2011.  Bain under Romney invested in Domino’s Pizza, which has added 7,900 jobs since 1999.  And those are just three of the many, MANY companies that Bain Capital turned around or created with its investment.

Some of the jobs that Romney has claimed credit for were created several years after he left the company. But there is no question that had he not been involved when he made the investment decisions he made, those jobs never would have existed at all.

Every single one of those well-over hundred thousand jobs that Romney created ought to be counted from the very premise of the current Obama ad: because the steel company (GST Steel) that is featured in the ad lost the jobs well AFTER Romney left Bain.  To go with the fact that it’s a laugh to blame Bain for those jobs at ALL.  Mitt Romney was in fact turning around the Olympics by the time those GST Steel jobs were lost.

So now the same people who are saying Mitt Romney shouldn’t get credit for the jobs created after he left Bain are demanding that Romney be blamed for jobs that were lost AFTER he left Bain.  Because the quintessential defining essence of a Democrat is abject personal hypocrisy and abject personal dishonesty.

Interestingly, the key decision-maker at Bain Capital during those two years after Romney left and when GST Steel was closed was none other than Jonathan Lavine. Who was Jonathan Lavine?  Lavine just happens to be a major Obama supporter and bundler who raised more than $100,000 for the Obama’s reelection campaign.  But please forget that, as it is just a fact and interferes with Obama’s demagoguery.

At Steel Dynamics Romney created 6,000 jobs. Why doesn’t that matter?  Same reason it doesn’t matter that Obama’s money bundler was actually the guy who ran Bain’s dismantling of any job losses at GST Steel.  So let’s forget Steel Dynamics and focus exclusively on Obama’s bogus attack campaign.

Meanwhile Barack Obama boasts of having created millions of jobs even as in actual fact the actual number of jobs has nosedived since his presidency as accurately measured by the labor participation rate. The numbers do not lie: you can see the participation rate nosediving year by year by year under Obama. And it’s now basically the lowest ever measured.

If the same labor participation rate that Bush left office with were applied to Obama’s economy, the unemployment rate would be 11.4%.

Since those who give up looking are not included in the official labor statistics, the more workers Obama crushes into total despair, the better for his unemployment numbers.

Under Obama, 88 million working-age Americans have simply dropped out of the damn labor force altogether. It is sickening to hear Obama boast of creating jobs when he’s annihilated MILLIONS of jobs that have now simply ceased to exist.

We can rightly demand, “Where are the jobs, Obama, you liar???”

Anyway, Obama just put out a new ad attacking Mitt Romney. You need to ignore the well-over 100,000 jobs that Romney created and focus on the people who lost their jobs as a result of Romney’s work buying bankrupt and dying companies and rebuilding them.

But Obama demonizes himself by his own demonization. Consider what Obama did – you know, the guy who credits himself with saving GM – to Delphi:

The Delphi Disaster: An Economic Horror Story Obama Won’t Tell
Posted By Michelle Malkin On September 22, 2010 @ 12:21 am In FrontPage

The White House believes it can win back depressed and economically stressed voters by turning President Obama into the storyteller-in-chief again. But victims of Obama’s Chicago politics don’t want to hear any more of his own well-worn tales of struggle and sacrifice. They’ve got their own tragedies to tell — heart-wrenching dramas of personal and financial suffering at the very hands of Obama.

Consider the real-life horror story of 20,000 white-collar workers at Delphi, a leading auto parts company spun off from GM a decade ago. As Washington rushed to nationalize the U.S. auto industry with $80 billion in taxpayer “rescue” funds and avoid contested court termination proceedings, the White House auto team schemed with Big Labor bosses to preserve UAW members’ costly pension funds by shafting their nonunion counterparts. In addition, the nonunion pensioners lost all of their health and life insurance benefits.

The abused workers — most from hard-hit northeast Ohio, Michigan and neighboring states — had devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees at Delphi/GM. Some workers have watched up to 70 percent of their pensions vanish.

John Berent of Marblehead, Ohio, lost one-third of his pension: “I worked as a salaried employee for GM (30 years) and Delphi (10 years). After 40 years of dedicated service, I was forced to retire. Then Delphi terminated my health care, life insurance, vision, dental, then terminated the pension plan. Everything I worked 40 years for was wiped out.”

Kelly Fabrizio of Franksville, Wis., saw her pension reduced by 55 percent after working 30 years at Delphi/GM: “I am truly scared for my future. Every day I wake up, shake my head and say out loud — This Is Not How It Was Supposed To Be.”

Roger Hoke of Columbus, Mich., and his wife were both longtime Delphi workers. His pension shrunk by more than 40 percent: “After 33 years with GM and another 10 with Delphi, what did I do wrong to deserve such a fate?”

Paul Dobosz of the Delphi Salaried Retiree Association recounts how they got screwed: “The Auto Task Force knew that the only thing standing in the way of GM getting what they wanted out of Delphi was the already frozen pension obligations.” They hatched a plan to dump those pensions on the federally run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, while at the same time “devising a clever way to make the UAW pensions whole using GM and TARP money to accomplish it.

The scheme was documented in sworn depositions (that) revealed … that some groups of workers were more ‘politically sensitive’ and would be afforded special treatment (i.e. subsidy using TARP money) while others less politically worthy would be left out.”

In other words: Obama’s team of auto-crats — stocked with Big Labor-friendly appointees and self-admitted know-nothings about the car industry — decided to “cherry pick” (one Obama official’s own words) which obligations the new Government Motors company would assume and which they would abandon based on their own political whims and fealty. Due process and equal treatment of union and nonunion workers be damned. Administration officials assert that the Delphi workers’ pension fund was underfunded, but two separate actuarial analyses undercut the claim.

The Delphi workers sued the feds and will have a day in court on Sept. 24. They are not asking for a bailout. They are simply asking for fair treatment under the rule of law. Delphi supporters also point out that the very scheme used to “top up” the union workers’ pensions with taxpayer subsidies was challenged by the federal government and ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in the 1990s.

A separate investigation by TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky, announced last week, will also probe “whether political considerations played a role in favoring hourly over salaried retirees.” It shouldn’t take long to unearth the facts. Obama’s own former auto czar Steve Rattner admitted in his new memoir that “attacking the union’s sacred cow” could “jeopardize” the auto bailout deal.

While Obama conducts his worker empathy tour at staged town halls and rallies across the country, his Treasury Department continues to stonewall and refuses to answer questions about the Delphi disaster. But many workers left out in the cold know the truth: Lip-biting, yarn-spinning Obama doesn’t feel their pain. He caused it.

Twenty thousand Delphi workers lost their jobs, their pensions and their lives. And Barack Obama did it to them:

The unprecedented intrusion of the executive branch of the US government into the American auto industry when the Obama Administration orchestrated the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcy processes is now leading to unprecedented responses. Groups that were clearly discriminated against and had their rights subordinated to politically powerful unions may actually have a winnable case against our own government as lawsuits are being brought against the US Treasury Dept. and others.

The Delphi salaried retirees who saw their pension benefits disintegrate after the GM bankruptcy are now suing the US Treasury, the Auto Task Force, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and ex-Auto Task Force heads, Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom. The first hearing against the Treasury Dept. and others will occur on August 17th. The basis of the suit is that the Obama Administration wrongfully used taxpayer dollars to pick winners and losers in the GM bankruptcy. I had a conversation with one of the lead plaintiffs, Chuck Cunningham, who explained how there was blatant favoritism and discrimination in regards to pension benefits for groups that should have had equal standing.

Mr. Cunningham, who is a retired senior executive of Delphi, informed me that the Delphi salaried workers’ benefit fund was one of the highest funded plans that were taken over by the Pension Benefits Guarantee Company (an independent agency of the US government administered by Presidential cabinet members) during bankruptcy processes. Other Delphi groups whose pensions were taken over included the UAW, International Union of Electrical Workers and the United Steelworkers Union. Can you take a guess at which groups fared the best?

While the pension funds involved should have been treated equally, politically powerful cronies of the Obama Administration were favored through a process called “topping up.” Treasury instructed GM to use taxpayer money to top up pension payments for the UAW, GM salaried workers, the IUE and the steelworkers’ union while Delphi salaried workers lost the majority of their benefits. The favored groups lost none of their pension payments, courtesy of the US taxpayers, and retained health care benefits. The non-politically connected Delphi workers lost 70% of their pensions and all of their health care benefits.

A congressional committee has been investigating the unfair treatment that Delphi retirees received compared to other groups. According to Mr. Cunningham, while he was not at liberty to discuss congressional actions, the investigations will continue. Thus far, much evidence from closed-door meetings between Treasury and the PBGC has been withheld from Delphi plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also will be releasing a four page document described as a “timeline of deception.”

The American people should pay close attention to the Delphi case. The auto bailouts are an ugly chapter in American history and should be viewed as such. Actions taken by the Obama Administration were manipulative and displayed a clear plan to redistribute wealth from taxpayers and less favored groups, like GM bondholders and Delphi retirees, to politically powerful friends of Obama. The claim that these actions were taken with the sole intention of saving jobs is false as evidenced by the Auto Tasks Force’s demands to close thousands of dealerships during the process. The intentions were to save UAW jobs and reward the groups with the most political clout. In the words of former head of the Auto Task Force, Ron Bloom, they “did it all for the unions.”

When the Obama Administration presents its case that the auto bailouts were a huge success, they are relying on an arrogant assumption that the majority of voters will not be paying close enough attention to the discrimination and unethical conduct that transpired. I don’t expect that most Americans will be too concerned with the losses incurred by Delphi retirees or GM bondholders, but there is a much more important reason to be concerned. If the executive branch of our government can seize assets from any one group of individuals and redistribute the wealth as they deem fit, all Americans are at risk. Congress should be unrelenting in its investigations and America should pay attention. Most of all, the unprecedented actions that took place should never have a chance of being repeated.

Saving a sick company is like saving a cancer patient: you very often have to remove a lot of stuff in order to save the patient’s life. Just like with healthy cells infected with cancer cells, with sick companies, there are invariably more jobs than there is profitability – and you have to go in and cut out those jobs in order to bring the company back into balance so it can survive – so the company can survive and continue to employ the workers who can best support the company’s operations and bottom line.

It’s often labelled “creative destruction.”  It is simply a fact of reality.  The doctor removes part of the patient’s liver; but thank God because the entire patient would have died a lingering death if the doctor hadn’t taken out that part of the patient’s liver.

The essence of free markets is that some businesses succeed and others fail. Some jobs in failing businesses need to be preserved and others need to be cut. And the only people who abjectly refuse to understand this simple fact are communists.

If Obama’s ad against Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital has any validity whatsoever, Barack Obama himself is unfit for president by his own rhetoric and ought to resign in disgrace for what he did to Delphi workers.

Then there’s the whole issue of Bain Capital versus Obama Capital. That comparison doesn’t make Obama look good AT ALL.

On top of that you’ve got the further hypocrisy in the fact that top Obama officials worked for Bain Capital (OMB Director Jeffrey Zients).  One of Obama’s top bundlers worked for Bain Capital (former Bain managing director Jonathan Lavine).

Obama is a hypocrite, pure and simple. He is a pathologically dishonest man. This is no different from the Obama who demonized George Bush over Gitmo – only to keep Gitmo open throughout his own presidency and making himself a documented liar. This is no different from the Obama who demonized George Bush over the debt ceiling – only to not only increase the debt ceiling himself, but in fact to ram through the three highest increases in the entire history of the human race.

This is an abject liar who documents again and again that he is unfit to be president measured by his own lying rhetoric.

Barack Obama’s lies and hypocrisy are shameful and sickening. And if you support Obama, it is because you yourself are a dishonest person whose shriveled soul swims in a great ocean of hypocrisy.