Posts Tagged ‘June 2009’

Obama’s Wreckovery: In Obama’s ‘Recovery’ Incomes Have Fallen Nearly TWICE As Much As During The Actual Recession From June 2007 to June 2009

August 27, 2012

This is unbelievable: the only thing worse than the “Bush recession” – at least the recession that he gets all the blame for – has been the “Obama wreckovery.”

Stop and think about it: as much as Bush has been demagogued and demonized for the recession, household incomes only dropped by 2.6%.  I say “only” because during this “recovery” that Obama has taken and received so much credit for, household incomes have lost nearly TWICE as much – a whopping 4.8%.

And if you’re black, you’re screwed: because Obama has gutted your household wealth since his “recovery” by a staggering 11.1%.

This is absolutely devastating news for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign – which is why the mainstream media has tried to bury it with the following WaPo story appearing on page A-10 by which point most people are flipping through the pages looking for the damn funnies:

Household income is below recession levels, report says
By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: August 23

Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.

From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.

Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report, which analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

Overall, median income is 7.2 percent below its December 2007 level and 8.1 percent below where it stood in January 2000, when it was $55,470, according to the report.

The findings highlight the depth of the recession and the long road the nation has to traverse before it fully recovers. They also echo other reports detailing the financial carnage caused by the recession.

This summer, the Federal Reserve reported that the downturn eviscerated two decades of gains in Americans’ wealth. The central bank said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010, pushing that measure back to nearly 1992 levels.

Few analysts expect a quick bounce back even as the economy grows, if tepidly. The unemployment rate was 8.3 percent in July, marking 42 months that it has been above 8 percent. About 5.2 million people — 40 percent of the unemployed — had been out of work for more than six months. An additional 8.2 million were working part time because they could not get full-time work.

Corporate profits, meanwhile, have recovered. But with workers producing more on the job, the gains in economic output have not been matched by new hiring.

“The character of the recovery has been one that has benefited businesses more than it has workers,” said Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist.

Although the new report does not take into account tax cuts enacted in recent years that have boosted take-home pay, it shows that a broad swath of Americans have lost some income.

Over the past three years, the inflation-adjusted median income of households headed by whites was down 5.2 percent, to $56,255. Households headed by blacks sustained a staggering 11.1 percent drop in median income. Hispanic-led households saw their real income decline by 4.1 percent over the same period, the report said.

Looking at the data by age, the researchers found that income has risen only for workers older than 65 during the recovery, which report co-author and Sentier partner Gordon Green attributes to the cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients.

Households led by the self-employed saw their income drop 9.4 percent, to $66,752, the report said. Households headed by private-sector employees saw wages drop by 4.5 percent, to $63,800, and households led by government workers saw median income decline by 3.5 percent, to $77,998, the report said.

Government workers, on average, are better educated than private-sector workers, which could help explain their higher wage levels, Green said.

The report also concluded that the declines have been most dramatic in the West, where household income is down 8.5 percent over the past three years. By comparison, income was down 4.9 percent in the Northeast and the South, the report said, while incomes in the Midwest dropped by just 1.1 percent over the past three years.

As usual, Newsbusters actually does a better job reporting the actual news than mainstream media outlets.  You can easily understand why that would be give the fact that the Washington Post which first reported on the story managed to bury it as deep in the bowels of the paper as possible.  If this was Bush’s economy and disastrous news like this came out right before his damn convention, you can rest assured it would have been the main headline in giant letters on the front page.

Here’s Newsbuster’s article on this report on just how truly pathetic Obamanomics has been:

‘Household Income Has Fallen 4.8%’ Since June 2009, But WashPost Buries Story on Page A10
By Ken Shepherd | August 24, 2012 | 17:10

Yesterday a “report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials,” found that “[f]rom June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent,” Michael A. Fletcher of the Washington Post reported today. What’s more, the fall in median household income was much worse for blacks, “a staggering 11.1 percent drop.” June 2009, you may recall, marks the end of the recession that began in December 2007.

Yet such news was shoved down to page A10 by Post editors, rather than placed on the paper’s August 23 front page, which included, among other things, a large photo of a woman working on a large sand sculpture at a resort in Florida, a story about Mitt Romney’s campaign ‘Mad Men,’ and a story about how Lance Armstrong “won’t fight doping charges” anymore.

The Sentier Research survey also found that young Americans suffered a steeper hit than the average American, with those under 25 seeing a 6.1 percent drop in median income and those in the 25-34 bracket suffering an 8.9 percent drop. Given how well President Obama did with the youth vote, their economic suffering under his administration is certainly worthy of coverage and criticism.

If such data were discovered in a survey released just a week before the Democratic convention in 2004 or 2008, it most certainly would be front-page news as the media hit the Bush administration and Republicans for a soft economy and teed up the opposition party with a talking point to flog during the convention.

But alas, the media are too busy with more important things, like dutifully echoing Democratic talking points tarring the entire Republican Party with one Missouri congressman’s offensive comments on rape.

The funniest thing is that the more Obama has tried to help whatever group or region with his failed policies, the more that group or region suffered.  That ought to tell you something.  Blacks have been absolutely devastated by Obama, but 95% of them are going to vote for the man who has destroyed them.  The same applies to the young people who voted Obama into office in 2008 and now live in their parents’ houses, with half of all college graduates under Obama unable to find a job.  Maybe they can’t find a damn job because they’re still stupid enough to vote for the man who wrecked their lives.  And no region has fared worse than the West, but don’t tell that to states like California and Washington which would both vote for Chairman Freaking Mao if he were running as a Democrat.

The poor are going to vote for Obama.  And that’s great for Obama: BECAUSE THE FOOL HAS CREATED MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

Meanwhile on every measure across the board the president who is demonized as such a terrible failure (that’s George Bush, kids) was so much better than Obama it isn’t even funny.

This reminds me of how Adolf Hitler systematically destroyed Germany until there was just nothing left.  It wasn’t the rank-and-file people who were fiercely loyal to him come what may; it was the rabid Nazis who demanded the nation follow Hitler to its very grave.  Similarly, Barack Obama and his Marxist Obamanomics has been the absolute systematic destruction of the American economy and the American middle class, but with the mainstream media and the Democrat machine rabidly following this turd and slant the news with outright propaganda.  And so just like Nazi Germany, America may well end up in the graveyard of dead nations by 2016 if Obama gets another chance to finish the destruction of America that he started in 2009.

Advertisements

Hey, ‘Republicans Drove Us Into A Ditch’ Liberals, Put THIS Into Your Pipe and Smoke It: Conservative Economic Principles RULE In Texas

July 5, 2011

This isn’t a piece by conservative Jonah Goldberg saying what all conservatives already know.  This is a piece by a self-identified liberal writing in the Los Angeles Times acknowledging a FACT that is frankly the death knell of liberal economic policy.

43% of ALL jobs created in the United States since June of 2009 have come from a conservative state that represents 8% of the national economy.  And Barack Obama has taken credit for every single one of them even as he demonizes the policies that actually produced all of those jobs.

Now, notice how this liberal tries to give credit to the most successful job-engine in America, and then steal that credit away from the conservatives and the conservative policies that brought that job-engine about.

Texas, the jobs engine
Conservatives hail it and liberals dispute the story, but one thing is certain about the Lone Star State’s employment success: The number is real.

By Rick Wartzman
July 3, 2011

For the last few weeks, I’ve been unable to get a startling statistic out of my head: Since the recession officially ended, Texas has created more than 4 of every 10 new jobs in America.

That’s right, Texas: the reddest of red states, home to gun lovers and school textbooks that openly question whether the Founding Fathers intended for the separation of church and state. I am no ideologue. Still, whenever I get political, I tend to tilt reflexively to the left, making the jobs figure a bit disconcerting at first.

But there’s no escaping it. The number is real. Which means that if you care about putting people back to work at a time when nearly 14 million in this country are unemployed, maybe Texas has something to teach us.

Unfortunately, that’s not the posture many commentators have taken. Instead, when the data from Texas emerged — touted first by Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas — conservatives were quick to celebrate, embracing the jobs tally as powerful evidence of the superiority of Republican ideas as well as proof that Texas Gov. Rick Perry would make a good president. But that’s overly simplistic [me: yeah, that’s right.  Let’s keep re-analyzing this until we somehow we make it a victory for Obama liberalism in spite of the fact that Republicans have been running this state at every single political level].

Meanwhile, those on the liberal end of the spectrum immediately set out to shoot the numbers down. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, for instance, held up a giant bologna and mocked the notion of a “Texas miracle.” That view, however, is too cavalier.  [Me: yeah, you’ve got a better way to steal credit from conservatives, don’t you, Wartzman?].

So what’s actually happening?

First, the basics. According to the Dallas Fed, Texas generated 43% of the net new jobs in the U.S. from June 2009 through May 2011 — an enormous share when you consider that the Lone Star State accounts for about 8% of the nation’s economy. (Critics, including Maddow, have been quick to note that the unemployment rate in Texas, at 8%, falls in the middle of the pack among the states. Yet total employment is a much more telling and reliable statistic than is the jobless rate.)

Aspects of the Texas economy are unusual, if not unique, and it will be difficult or impossible for other states to replicate them. For example, the energy industry is booming right now, as are agricultural commodities destined for export — a boon for a huge cotton and beef producer like Texas. [Me: Let’s simply ignore the fact that MANY states have abundant oil resources, but THOSE states are refusing to drill for them because they have a particularly nasty species of vermin called “liberals” running them.  Meanwhile, Democrats in California have gutted what had been the most productive agricultural region in the entire world by shutting off their water and protecting a stupid little fish.  It’s as if the other states are cutting their own throats and then pointing out that Texas is only doing so well because it hasn’t cut it’s own throat too].

What’s more, thorny tradeoffs surely exist. Texas is attracting businesses, in part, because it has low taxes. But that, in turn, makes for a smaller safety net, which is one reason Texas has a high incidence of poverty and, compared with every other state, the biggest proportion of its population without health insurance. There are also serious questions about the quality of jobs in Texas. A “right to work” state, it is tied with Mississippi for having the biggest percentage of workers paid at or below the minimum wage.  [Me: I’d rather have a job and make my own way than live off of a welfare state paid by other people’s money until the safety net collapsed.  But that’s just me.  This amounts to another way of saying, ‘Yes, Texas is creating all the jobs; but we want socialism in America, not jobs.  Aside from that, the data shows that Texas shares higher poverty rates with every single other state in the southern region (which shows that poverty is a problem with the entire region rather than a problem with Texas).  But hey, we have to bash Texas for being successful, right?  You need to understand something: Democrats don’t give a DAMN about creating jobs; they only care about leftwing UNION jobs, as what’s going on in South Carolina over a Boeing plant amply demonstrates].

But even with these significant caveats, Texas has long been the most robust jobs engine in the country, and its policies and practices deserve deeper reflection. Some say, for example, that an increase in education funding 25 years ago lifted the quality of the workforce. “That set the table for job expansion,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Mitchell Schnurman has asserted. (Budget pressures in Texas are now forcing education spending to go in the other direction.).  [Me: you heard right; let’s give all the credit to what Democrats did 25 years ago so we don’t have to give any credit at all to what Republicans have done ever since.  Because liberals must always get the credit no matter how far back you have to go to do it; and conversely, conservatives must always get the blame no matter how far back you have to go to do it].

Also deserving of further exploration are the strict lending guidelines that Texas banks instituted after the S&L crisis of the 1980s. Those standards spurred institutions to keep larger capital reserves and take on fewer problem mortgages than were seen elsewhere in the country. As a result, the state emerged relatively unscathed from the most recent real estate meltdown.  [Me: this is an quick reference to the Democrat-imposed Fannue and Freddie subprime lending policies that were supposed to make home ownership a right for minorities who couldn’t repay their loans.  George Bush tried to reform these policies 17 times, but Democrats – who ran both the House and the Senate when our economy crashed – would have none of these common-sense Republican reforms.  Fortunately conservative Texas passed their own laws to protect them from the Community Reinvestment Act and all the other Democrat horrors].

At the same time — and this, of course, is the tough part for those on the left to swallow — it is clear that the state’s limits on taxes, regulations and lawsuits are contributing to the job machine. “The most important thing I think that’s happened to us is tort reform,” Fisher, the Dallas Fed president, has said. He added that when John Deere and other companies have decided to hire in Texas, they’ve been largely driven by steps the state has taken to cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits and to make it harder to bring product liability and class-action cases.

For those whose knee-jerk instinct is to dump on such logic, they would do well here to consider the source. Fisher served in President Carter’s Treasury Department and as a high-ranking trade official for President Clinton, and was a two-time Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. Although the former investment banker is certainly not an ardent leftie, he is no right-wing zealot either.

To be sure, Texas is not without lots of problems. And its remarkable employment growth is not without attendant concerns. But for those on the left to dismiss the state’s jobs story out of hand, just because Republicans have embraced it as a showpiece, is counterproductive and foolish.

Counterproductiveness and foolishness are two of the three hallmarks that define the left.  Hypocrisy is the third.

A lot of Californians are whining about the fact that many “Texas jobs” came at California’s expense.  And the whiny liberals are right; many of those employers DID escape from the liberal hellhole known as the People’s Soviet State of California.  But here’s the question: do you want America to be more like California – which among other things features a $500 billion black hole of economic death known as unfunded liabilities from state union pensions – or do you want a job?  Do you want a demagogic excuse for why all the jobs are going elsewhere, or do you want a job?  Do you want to sit on your fat pimply sweaty ass living on welfare until the system crashes and you starve to death, or do you want a system that actually produces something?

If you want the former vote for Obama, vote for Democrats, and then go to hell when you die.  If you want the latter, for God’s sakes, please vote for the Republicans who  are actually creating jobs in America.

Democrats look back at 2008 and blame “failed Republican policies.”  Basically, all they have to point at is the fact that George Bush was president when it happened.  They ignore the fact that Democrats had total control of the House and near total control of the Senate for nearly two years prior to the disaster happening.  They claim that Republicans refusing to regulate was what created the mess.  They ignore the fact that Democrats REPEATEDLY refused ANY regulation whatsover of Fannie and Freddie which had overwhelming control of the housing market that actually caused the meltdown.  Look at the actual facts:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/aei-article-how-fannie-and-freddie-blew-up-the-economy/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/barney-frank-and-democrat-party-most-responsible-for-2008-economic-collapse/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/barney-frank-video-proves-democrats-at-core-of-2008-economic-collapse/

http://hennessysview.com/business/franklin-raines-criminal-enterprise-and-barack-obama-his-accomplice/

http://politicsorpoppycock.com/2008/09/28/franks-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-financial-fiasco/

The last link above refers to a Boston Herald story which has since been scrubbed.  It’s amazing how articles that taint Democrats have a way of “vanishing.”  It’s one of the reasons I blog.  I want to preserve the record of what actually happened to this country.

All this to say that Democrats had a false demagogic narrative based on lies.

But the American people bought those lies in 2008.  And Democrats had dictatorial control of the White House, the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof Senate for nearly two full years.  And they took their same failed policies which led to the economic collapse of 2008 and expanded them.  And they promised Americans that their godawful stimulus would work.  It not only failed; it completely failed even by the Obama White House’s own constantly-shifting standards.  And it cost us $3.27 TRILLION we didn’t have.

Now, amazingly, the fact that the president happens to be a Democrat – and the fact that that Democrat took bad news and made it far worse – no longer matters.  Now Democrats want to say that it’s the Republicans – who only control the House of Representatives – are blocking economic progress.  Even though it DIDN’T matter that Nancy Pelosi was running the House of Representatives into the ground in 2007 and 2008.  To go along with Harry Reid doing the same thing during the same time period in the US Senate.

Democrats don’t run on facts; they run on demagoguery.  Remember that the man who led Texas into the job-creating machine that it is not only has nothing to do with George Bush, he actually didn’t like Bush as a big spending and compromising “compassionate conservative.”  Because Democrats and their mainstream media propagandists are already starting to tell the demagogic lie that Rick Perry is somehow identical to George Bush simply because the two men were governors of the same state.

Recession Ended In June 2009? Really? Then What The #*$% Do You Call This?

September 21, 2010

Did you hear?  Happy Times have been here again since June 2009.  And don’t check outside your window to find out that the sun smiles down; listen to the “experts”:

It’s official: The Great Recession ended last summer
By Neil Irwin

The Great Recession is officially over — and has been for more than a year.

The panel of economists that is the widely accepted arbiter of business cycles has called an end to what is now officially the longest U.S. economic downturn of the post-World War II era. The recession ended in June 2009, 18 months after it began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research’s business cycle dating committee.

Yes I see all the qualifiers that the economists hastened to add to say that things aint rosy.

But I also can’t help but notice how convenient the proclamation was: just in time for the post-labor day political silly season, when people finally begin to listen to the campaign rhetoric.

It’s almost as if … No.  Couldn’t be.  No way a panel of economists would ever allow themselves to be useful idiots for big government liberalism.

On the other hand, Thomas Sowell DOES point out that the liberal intelligentsia have pretty much always been useful idiots for big government leftist ideologies in the past:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

In any event, I recently compiled a list of crises that were gripping the country during the period that Obama was gripping a golf club a few weeks back:

I want you to go back over that list and see how many of these disasters are basically under the banner of “worst since …”  And that many of these go back several decades.

Does that make it sound like we went through the rough patch and come out the other side?  When less than a month ago we saw the jobless numbers at their highest in 9 months, pre-owned homes sales sink to their lowest level in 15 years, new home sales sink to their lowest level since 1963, durable goods orders sink to their lowest level in 1 1/2 years, the federal deficit soaring to its highest level in 65 years, the trade gap rising to its widest margin in 26 years, and so on?

How about this description of Obama’s economic legacy: the highest poverty rate increase in FIFTY YEARS just reported????

Poverty Rate In U.S. Saw Record Increase In 2009: 1 In 7 Americans Are Poor
HOPE YEN and LIZ SIDOTI | 09/11/10

WASHINGTON — The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

Now, you see all those other terrible numbers and you think, “And the eggheads say we’re out of recession now?”

Even DEMOCRATS don’t believe this load of giant load of junk:

Disappointed Supporters Question Obama
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: September 20, 2010

WASHINGTON — It was billed as “Investing In America,” a live televised conversation between President Obama and American workers, students, business people and retirees on the state of the economy, a kind of Wall Street to Main Street reality check.

But it sounded like a therapy session for disillusioned Obama supporters.

In question after question in Monday’s one-hour session, which took place at the Newseum here and was televised on CNBC, Mr. Obama was confronted by people who said, in short, that they had expected more from him. People from Main Street wanted to know if the American dream still lived for them. People from Wall Street complained that he was treating them like a piñata, “whacking us with the stick,” in the words of a former law school classmate of Mr. Obama’s who now runs a hedge fund.

“I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for,” said the first questioner, an African-American woman who identified herself as a chief financial officer, a mother and a military veteran. “I’ve been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class, and I’m waiting, sir, I’m waiting. I still don’t feel it yet.”

The jokes on you, fools.  You voted for demagogic rhetoric and empty promises of “hope” and “change.”

And you got precisely what you voted for; the worst failure in American history.

Obama’s response to the woman was his typical load of demagogic garbage that the Republicans only care about their own power, whereas Obama is transcendentally hovering above politics, only caring about the people.  Even though Obama was there in the first place for a political campaign event.

The elite liberal government class will, of course, continue to assure us that Obama’s economy is somehow proceeding exactly according to plan.  But when these people tell you “Good morning,” you’d darned well better check outside:

Because these eggheads aren’t telling you the truth.