Posts Tagged ‘work’

Obama Says, ‘We Don’t Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country.’ Especially People Who Start Businesses Or Risk Their Money Investing.

October 8, 2012

Put this in your, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” comment and smoke it:

Obama: ‘We Don’t Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country’
11:59 AM, Oct 5, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

President Obama, speaking in Virginia, said, “We don’t believe anybody is entitled to success in this country.”

“This  country does not just succeed when just a few are doing well at the  top,” Obama said, according to a rush transcript of the remarks. “It succeeds when the middle class gets bigger. Our economy does not  grow from the top-down, it grows from the middle-out. We do not believe  that anybody is entitled to success in this country. But we do believe  in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and  responsibilities are rewarded and everybody is getting a fair shot and  everybody’s doing their fair share. And everybody’s paying by the same  rules. That is the country believe in. That is what we have been  fighting for the last four years. That is what we’re going to put in  place in the next four years if you reelect me as president of the United States of America.”

You see, that’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals say everybody ought to be the same, everybody ought to have their wealth redistributed and doled out to everybody else such that as Karl Marx famously stated:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

You see, conservatives don’t think so.  We think if a small business owners works a hundred hours a damn week to make his or her business successful, that business owner is entitled to his or her success.  Conservatives think if a smart investor risks his or her money on an investment that succeeds, that investor is entitled to his or her success.  We think that people who work harder or who work smarter than other people ought to be entitled to keep what they worked harder or smarter than others FOR.  In the case of rich people, we even think that rich people who worked hard their entire lives to give their children an inheritance are entitled to GIVE their kids that inheritance.  Just as we think those kids are entitled to receive what their parents worked so hard to give them.

Do you know what you ARE entitled to in America under Obama’s failed presidency?  Food stamps:

[W]e are confident that no readers will be surprised to learn that foodstamp usage for both persons and households, has jumped to a new all time record.

At 46,681,833 persons hooked on SNAP, the July number crossed the previous record posted a short month before, as the foodstamp curve continues ‘plumbing’ newer and greater heights each month.

More disturbing is that in the same month, the number of US households reliant on foodstamps rose by a whopping 99,493 to 22,541,744. Assuming a modest 2 persons per household, the increase means that more people went on Foodstamps in the month of July than found jobs (181,000 according to the latest revised NFP data). Furthermore, it appears that buying votes has become a tad more expensive in the past month. After the benefit per household dipped to a record low in April at just $275.81, this has since retraced some of its losses and is now at an inflationary $277.92. Oh well: inflation.

Adding the number of disability recipients in the month of July, which in that month rose by 20,474, and one can see why the government is quite happy with dumping this particular release long after everyone was on their way back home for the weekend.

Finally, and putting it all into perspective, since December 2007, or the start of the Great Depression ver 2.0, the number of jobs lost is 4.5 million, while those added to foodstamps and disability rolls, has increased by a unprecedented 21 million. Oh and about $7 or $8 trillion in debt. Who’s counting really.

Which is why you can bet your farm that this government-subsidized princess will be sure to vote Obama:

I wish I could go to the home of every liberal (like a liberal version Santa Claus) and take away every single toy their kids come out of the house with.  A liberal’s kid comes out with a new bike, I’m going to take that bike.  That kid isn’t entitled to that bike.  And I’m going to redistribute it to some other poor kid.  If a liberal’s kid comes out with the hot new toy, why, just how in the hell is that kid entitled to that?  Santa Claus is coming to town to redistribute the damn wealth.  And I’m going to make sure that every fat-assed, lazy, good-nothing sluggard gets what every hard-working person worked so hard to build.  Because I think that “you didn’t build that” and “you’re not entitled to it.”

People who work hard and suceed are FAR more entitled to what they earn than every single liberal parasite on earth combined.

Austrian Man Saws Off Own Foot Rather Than Be Declared Fit To Work (He Should Just Have Come To USA And Collected Obama’s Unemployment For Life)

April 2, 2012

This is beyond incredible:

Austrian saws off own foot to avoid work: report
Reuters
March 26, 2012

VIENNA — An unemployed Austrian man on Monday deliberately sliced off his left foot with a mechanical saw and threw it into an oven ahead of a health check on whether he was fit to work, police said.

When police arrived the “desperate” 56-year-old from Mitterlabill in southern Austria was still conscious but had lost a lot of blood, local police chief Franz Fasching told AFP.

He was airlifted to hospital in Graz where his condition was said to be stable.

The man had mounted the mitre saw on two stools in his boiler room using nails and removed the guard plate before slicing off the foot above the ankle and around 5:00 am (0300 GMT).

Emergency services “looked in the oven and were able to recover the foot … The foot was taken the hospital but it was so badly burned that it cannot be sewn back on,” Fasching said.

So much for what one writer called “the myth of the day” about extended unemployment and laziness.   There are some pathologically lazy people out there, sportsfans.

Cato points out that:

The money Congress borrows to spend on unemployment benefits today will have to be paid back by taxing workers and employers down the road. This slows economic growth and leads to fewer jobs in the future.

Therefore, whatever help we give workers today comes at the expense of workers tomorrow. While old-fashioned Keynesian economists believe that extending unemployment benefits helps stimulate demand by pumping money into the economy, research by MIT’s Jonathan Gruber and others suggests that only a portion of unemployment benefits goes to consumption.

In fact, a Heritage Foundation study concluded that unemployment benefits add only a few cents to economic growth for every dollar spent. Virtually any other use of that money would provide more bang for the buck.

But perhaps most important, extending unemployment benefits may be bad for workers in the here and now.

A large body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits increases unemployment and keeps people out of work longer.

This is because workers are less likely to look for work, or accept less-than-ideal jobs, as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed.

The real tragedy is that this poor man could have come to Obama’s God damn America and thrived.  He is exactly what the Democrat Party wants the average American to look like.  The Democrat Party wants nothing more than someone who is so desperate that he would vote for anything – even the worst fool in the history of the presidency – in order to avoid responsibility for his own life.

Democrats are working hard to provide guaranteed unemployment benefits for life:

House Democrats introduced a bill Thursday that would extend federal unemployment insurance through 2012 and help states continue to offer assistance as well.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee‘s subpanel on human resources, submitted legislation Thursday that would extend federal unemployment benefits through the 2012 calendar year and give breaks to states trying to maintain their own assistance programs.

The Democratic lawmakers said they were willing to be flexible with the bill in order to get it passed in the Republican-controlled House. Republicans have said they might be willing to support extending the benefits, possibly if they were linked to worker retraining programs, which President Barack Obama has also proposed.

“This may be part of a broader package, and the supercommittee should be considering it too,” Doggett said at a press conference Thursday. “We’re trying to get it out there well in advance so this is not a Christmas Eve move.”

Last year an extension of unemployment insurance squeaked through in December as Democrats and Republicans agreed to extend up to 99 weeks of federal benefits for long-term unemployed Americans through 2011.

Don’t think for a second that Republicans want to do this: they are demonized as cruel and heartless by Democrats if they don’t keep voting for the next extension.

This story about the Austrian man desperately trying to collect benefits from the state for not working reminded me of a line from Dan Akroyd’s character Dr. Raymond Stantz in Ghostbusters:

“Personally, I liked the university; they gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything. You’ve never been out of college. You don’t know what it’s like out there. I’ve worked in the private sector–they expect results.”

Well, at least pathologically lazy Americans who don’t know how to build their own unlicensed nuclear accelerators don’t have to saw their feet off these days.  All they have to do is vote Democrat.

Tipping Point To Disaster: More Than Half Of Americans Now Live Off Government

March 11, 2011

I’m not the only one who thinks this doesn’t sound good at all, am I?

 It’s Official: Most Americans Make Their Living Off The Government A widely covered report from TrimTabs Investment Research, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, has found that 35 percent of all earnings are now direct transfer payments from the government. According to CNBC, “social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960.”

But the real story is much worse. Nearly 8% of Americans work directly for the government while an additional 9.6% of Americans work as contractors for the government. Taken together, more than half of all Americans make their living directly from the government. “We have reached a tipping point,” says Grassfire Nation’s Steve Elliott. “That’s why what is happening in Wisconsin could have huge ramifications. Unless citizens stand now for less government and fiscal restraint, the government-dependent class will demand more and more government and our nation will be destroyed from within.”

I don’t want to see my country go the way of the Dodo bird, but at this point, it very much looks like we’ll be taking the trip.

Just remember when Soylent Green time comes to eat all the liberals first.

Let’s Contrast Obama’s Work Schedule With His Economic Team’s

August 8, 2010

I found this interesting.  We’ve heard the inside stories that Christina Romer is quitting over conflicts with Lawrence Summers and frustration at being left out of Obama’s incredibly insular “team.” And then there’s also the fact that Romer recently published an academic paper that contradicts Obama’s central theses regarding government spending and high taxes.

But now we’re fed a different story, courtesy of the Official Obama Propaganda Service (OOPS):

Obama’s economic team exhausted
By Sam Youngman – 08/07/10 06:00 AM ET

President Obama’s economic team is exhausted, according to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, and that is one the reasons Christina Romer announced her departure Thursday.

Gibbs dismissed reports that Romer, the outgoing chairwoman of the president’s council for economic affairs, was leaving because of conflicts with Larry Summers, the director of the National Economic Council.

The press secretary told The Hill on Friday that Romer and the rest of the economic team have worked the equivalent of six years during the 18 months they’ve been in office, and Romer wanted to return to her normal life.

“These guys have probably packed a term and a half into a half of a term,” Gibbs said.

Romer is the second member of the economic team to leave this summer. She follows Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The early days of the administration alone were enough to wear the team down, he said, as they realized the depth of the recession.

“If you think about what we went through in the beginning, nobody knew when we woke up if the whole thing was just going to come crashing down,” Gibbs said.

[If one listens carefully, one can hear a shrill, whiny voice screaming, “It’s all Bush’s fault Romer is resigning!”].

Romer was involved in the administration’s planning of the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Ever since the legislation was approved by Congress, she’s been at the forefront of the administration’s effort to sell the product to the public.

That’s been difficult given the fact that the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent after the legislation’s approval. The administration had hoped the jobless rate would top off at 8 percent.

Romer was the administration’s public face every month when the national unemployment numbers were released – usually to bad news. She issued a statement on Friday noting the private sector created 71,000 jobs in July, not enough to lower unemployment.

Reports surrounding her departure suggest she was leaving because of the heavy presence of Summers, an economist with a reputation for less than stellar people skills, and because she was frustrated with life in Washington.

Gibbs dismissed those stories, saying Romer had been in on every critical meeting with Obama on the economy and played a key role in the White House’s economic policies. […]

So here’s the White House narrative to cover up the fact that there are big pissing matches going on inside the White House economic team, and the fact that Obama’s own economist has written a paper suggesting that her boss is leading the nation to “highly contractionary” economic ruin: Romer is quitting because she’s been working 32 hours a day (6 years divided by 1.5 years, times an average 8-hour work day).

Let’s not laugh and take it seriously for a moment.  The White House economic team has worked themselves into a frazzled mess, burdened with their profound care for the average America.

Well, what about their boss, Barry Hussein?

From the GuardianUK:

As Barack Obama settles into the White House, the differences between the way the old and new presidents manage their time will begin to show. Now it is time to break the puritan fiction that the only way to achieve is to get up early and live clean.

Ex-president Bush rose at 5.45am and was at his desk by 6.45am. He worked until 6pm, taking meetings in strict five-minute blocks. He ran three miles in 21 minutes before lunch every day. He does not drink. Women’s skirts – in his White House – had to fall below the knee.

Obama gets up hours later – aides during his campaign said he did much of his strategising after midnight. He smokes, he drinks beer while watching sports, and has mentioned keeping his regular poker night while president.

Bush showed up ready to work at 6:45AM.  For Obama, it’s kind of nice if he shows up by 9:30 – and not particularly bright-eyed or bushy-tailed after the partying from the previous evening.

That economic team is working themselves to the bone.  Obama couldn’t give a flying favorite-Emanuel/Blagojevich-phrase.

But staggering in to the office late in the morning at a time when useful people might be typically taking their first break of the day isn’t really enough to get the picture of contrast between those frazzled, overworked economic team members and their boss Barry Hussein.  Because we haven’t taken into account for all the vacations and all the golf outings, have we?

Obamas Take 4 Vacations in 1 Month

While many Americans are cutting back on their vacation plans or eliminating them altogether, Barack Obama is setting an aspirational example for all of us. Sure, times are tough, but perhaps we can enjoy a life of leisure vicariously through our betters.

On July 16-18, the Obamas enjoyed their first summer vacation in beautiful Bar Harbor, Maine. The idyllic town has long been favorite summer getaway for the rich and powerful going back to the Gilded Age. Truly a resort fit for a king public servant.

Anticipating exhaustion from two long weeks in Washington, D.C., Michelle Obama is hosting her eldest daughter and several family friends on a “private vacation” to Spain, August 4-8. Staying at the luxurious Villa Padierna, Americans can rest easy knowing the accomodations will “pamper guests with elegance, spaciousness and a comforting array of amenities.”  With three golf courses on the property, it’s quite a shame Barack must attend a party thrown in his honor by one of his billionaire friends.  Despite this hardship, I’m sure Michelle will sing “Don’t Cry for Me, America”. Or at least hum a few bars. (After the spa’s Chakra Balancing treatment with Hot Stones.)

The five days back in the White House will be a horrible burden to the family. Thankfully, the Obama clan will take a third vacation, Aug. 14-15, to Florida’s Gulf Coast, following charges of hypocrisy for vacationing in Maine earlier. As any PR pro will tell you, the best response to “out of touch” accusations is to face them head on. Preferably from a balcony, sipping a mojito while watching Helios’ golden rays paint the beach in myriad shades of gold as the fiery orb slips ‘neath the azure horizon.

Obama started out partying in a wildly inappropriate way:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House is the place to be on Wednesdays.Since the presidency changed hands less than six weeks ago, a burst of entertaining has taken hold of the iconic, white-columned home of America’s head of state. Much of it comes on Wednesdays.

The stately East Room, where portraits of George and Martha Washington adorn the walls, was transformed into a concert hall as President Barack Obama presented Stevie Wonder with the nation’s highest award for pop music on Wednesday.

// <![CDATA[//

A week before that, the foot-stomping sounds of Sweet Honey in the Rock, a female a cappella group, filled the East Room for a Black History Month program first lady Michelle Obama held for nearly 200 sixth- and seventh-graders from around the city.

Cocktails were sipped during at least three such receptions to date, all held on Wednesdays.

And he hasn’t let up since:

President party boy
The wrong kind of leadership

By JOHN GIBSON
Last Updated: 4:15 AM, June 10, 2010

Last week’s jobs report tanked the stock market; the president took weeks to assert control of the oil spill that threatens doom on the Gulf Coast — but at the White House the Gatsby-like parties roll on as if happy days were here again.

Just yesterday, President Obama held another fun-filled White House event, a picnic for Congress members, complete with hot dogs, cold beverages and a fire pit.

All told, during the last seven weeks of spewing oil and rampant unemployment, he has frolicked and danced through three major White House music parties:

Of course, the hypocrite propagandist lamestream media constantly criticized George Bush for golfing or vacationing or partying or pretty much anything, claiming that he needed to be constantly working to solve all the problems they said the nation faced.  And that was, you know, at a time when the nation didn’t have anywhere NEAR as many problems as it faces now.

Obama’s golf outings have generated favorable reports from the media, in contrast to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

On Aug. 5, 2002, The Washington Post wrote about President Bush golfing near his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Under the headline “Before Golf, Bush Decries Latest Deaths in Mideast,” staff writer Mike Allen described Bush as he “sprang from his golf cart at 6:15 a.m. and said he was distressed to hear about the latest suicide bombers in Israel.”

“Bush, wearing khakis and a knit shirt, was holding a driver in his gloved left hand,” Allen wrote.

“However incongruous the setting, the president plunged ahead,” Allen wrote.

And the entire country wasn’t falling apart at the time Allen took his leftwing cheap shot at Bush in the name of “journalism,” unlike what’s going on all around us today.

Blatant media hypocrisy and total disregard for anything approaching objectivity aside, the real emphasis needs to fall back on our Vacationer-in-Chief, as contrasted with his near-dead from exhaustion economic team.

There’s an ad for Direct TV that features a Russian Zillionaire.  He says, “Opulence, I has it.”  As he strolls leisurely along, he looks at two golden sculptures of himself, and without bothering to seriously study either he casually points a finger and says, “Zis one.”

That pampered Russian is apparently playing the roll of Obama strolling through the White House at noonish after getting home from another vacation or from attending another lavishly-opulent and taxpayer-funded party.

On this scenario, Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer were both up all night working on an economic report – according to Robert Gibbs – and Obama strolls in while they each hopefully hold up their work and says “Zis one.”

And of course, according to the stories, most of the time it’s Lawrence Summers’ report Obama points at.  Because Summers can piss farther.

Obama is so out-of-touch with reality it’s unreal.  He knows nothing about business.  None of the people who are making all the stupid decisions around him know anything about business.

Our post turtle president:

There’s just one difference between Obama and the post turtle – or apparently Obama’s economic team.  The post turtle can actually be found at his post.

Update: In addition to the massive criticism Michelle Obama has deservedly received for her massively expensive vacation to Spain (complete with government-funded transportation and over seventy Secret Service agents), we now learn that the Obama’s are going on their FIFTH vacation since July.

Let them eat cake.

Even Liberals Realizing Obama Has Been Total Bust At Creating Jobs

October 8, 2009

This article is in many ways typical New York Times.  It comes from a distinctly liberal perspective, and views solutions to the problems that America faces through a liberal prism.

The big difference in this case is that it really takes a critical look at a Democrat.  It slams Barack Obama as being basically disinterested and uninvolved in – and even uncomprehending of – the biggest crisis facing the country.

Does Obama Get It?

By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 5, 2009

The big question on the domestic front right now is whether President Obama understands the gravity of the employment crisis facing the country.  Does he get it?
The signals coming out of the White House have not been encouraging.

The Beltway crowd and the Einsteins of high finance who never saw this economic collapse coming are now telling us with their usual breezy arrogance that the Great Recession is probably over.  Their focus, of course, is on data, abstractions like the gross domestic product, not the continued suffering of living, breathing human beings struggling with the nightmare of joblessness.

Even Mr. Obama, in an interview with The Times, gave short shrift to the idea of an additional economic stimulus package, telling John Harwood a few weeks ago that the economy had likely turned a corner. “As you know,” the president said, “jobs tend to be a lagging indicator; they come last.”

The view of most American families is somewhat less blasé. Faced with the relentless monthly costs of housing, transportation, food, clothing, education and so forth, they have precious little time to wait for this lagging indicator to come creeping across the finish line.

Americans need jobs now, and if the economy on its own is incapable of putting people back to work — which appears to be the case — then the government needs to step in with aggressive job-creation efforts.

Nearly one in four American families has suffered a job loss over the past year, according to a survey released by the Economic Policy Institute. Nearly 1 in 10 Americans is officially unemployed, and the real-world jobless rate is worse.

We’re running on a treadmill that is carrying us backward. Something approaching 10 million new jobs would have to be created just to get back to where we were when the recession began in December 2007. There is nothing currently in the works to jump-start job creation on that scale.

A massive long-term campaign to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure — which would put large numbers of people to work establishing the essential industrial platform for a truly 21st-century American economy — has not seriously been considered. Large-scale public-works programs that would reach deep into the inner cities and out to hard-pressed suburban and rural areas have been dismissed as the residue of an ancient, unsophisticated era.

We seem to be waiting for some mythical rebound to come rolling in, magically equipped with robust job creation, a long-term bull market and paradise regained for consumers.

It ain’t happening.

While the data mavens were talking about green shoots in September, employers in the real world were letting another 263,000 of their workers go, bringing the jobless rate to 9.8 percent, the highest in more than a quarter of a century. It would have been higher still but 571,000 people dropped out of the labor market. They’re jobless but not counted as unemployed. The number of people officially unemployed — 15.1 million — is, as The Wall Street Journal noted, greater than the population of 46 of the 50 states.

The Obama administration seems hamstrung by the unemployment crisis. No big ideas have emerged. No dramatically creative initiatives. While devoting enormous amounts of energy to health care, and trying now to decide what to do about Afghanistan, the president has not even conveyed the sense of urgency that the crisis in employment warrants.

If that does not change, these staggering levels of joblessness have the potential to cripple not just the well-being of millions of American families, but any real prospects for sustained economic recovery and the political prospects of the president as well. An unemployed electorate is an unhappy electorate.

The survey for the Economic Policy Institute was conducted in September by Hart Research Associates. Respondents said that they had more faith in President Obama’s ability to handle the economy than Congressional Republicans. The tally was 43 percent to 32 percent. But when asked who had been helped most by government stimulus efforts, substantial majorities said “large banks” and “Wall Street investment companies.”

When asked how “average working people” or “you and your family” had benefited, very small percentages, in a range of 10 percent to 13 percent, said they had fared well.

The word now, in the wake of last week’s demoralizing jobless numbers, is that the administration is looking more closely at its job creation options. Whether anything dramatic emerges remains to be seen.

The master in this area, of course, was Franklin Roosevelt. His first Inaugural Address was famous for the phrase: “The only thing we have to fear. …” But he also said in that speech: “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” And he said the country should treat that task “as we would treat the emergency of a war.”

Now that’s the sense of urgency we need.

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on October 6, 2009, on page A31 of the New York edition.

Not to dive into the genetic fallacy, as so many liberals so often do, but it is nevertheless significant that the Economic Policy Institute is a distinctly liberal think tank.  And Hart Research Associates aint exactly Rasmussen.  So while I don’t know that they aren’t right in their survey about Obama vs. Congressional Republicans, I would point out: 1) that I wouldn’t regard it as gospel; and 2) don’t forget that as LOW as Bush got in the polls, he STILL outperformed the Democrat-controlled Congress throughout his entire presidency.

In fact, Bush had more than DOUBLE the ratings of the Democrat Congress:

Bush’s job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month’s record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade, tying last month’s record low.

So in terms of net differences, Bush actually fared quite a bit better when pitted against a Democrat Congress than Obama is faring when pitted against Congressional Republicans.  And I would submit that the public thinks a lot more highly of Republican ideas than this smoke-and-mirror statistic would otherwise indicate.  Just sayin’.

I made that point just to demonstrate the statistical sleight of hand going on.

Now, Bob Herbert is a big government, rah-rah FDR guy, who sees the big public projects of the WPA as the model for our country’s salvation.

For what it’s worth, I – and Congressional Republicans – agree(d) that that would have been FAR better than Obama’s $3.27 trillion pork-laden employment bust known as the stimulus.

A New York Times story points out why Republicans opposed the porkulus so fiercely:

But the committee’s ranking Republican, Jerry Lewis of California, asserted that the program would do far too little to finance road construction, flood control projects and other works for the public good.

“Facts are stubborn things,” Lewis said, describing the package as a recipe for bloated government programs that would saddle taxpayers with a debt burden “well, well into the future.”

And now even the New York Times is essentially acknowledging that the Republicans were right and Obama was wrong.

I would also point out that the Hoover Dam is named the Hoover Dam because Herbert Hoover was doing public works projects before FDR.  And Herbert Hoover was the guy that every Democrat loves to blame for the Great Depression.

And while we’re on the subject of what happened in the 1930s, I might as well point out that things didn’t go so good under the leadership of FDR.

In fact, FDR’s Treasury Secretary had this to say as he looked back over the decade:

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

A look at the graph of unemployment should help you understand what Henry Morganthau understood:

It shouldn’t surprise you when you take the time to learn about what FDR attempted that he actually prolonged the Great Depression by seven years.

Having mentioned the massive yet mysteriously ignored failure of FDR to solve unemployment or get the economy going, allow me to return to Obama’s current failure.

Still another liberal publication, Time Magazine, ran an article back in July entitled, “Obama’s Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure.”  It begins:

Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983.

And of course, it’s currently 9.8% – and almost certain to keep rising.

Now contrast what the Obama team predicted – a ceiling no higher than 8% unemployment – and then see what the administration is trying to pass off now:

Vice President Joe Biden delivered a rousing review of the government’s economic stimulus plan in a conversation with the nation’s governors. “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well,” he said. “Thank you, thank you.”

I mean, is this a statement that when team Obama said that they believed their stimulus plan would keep unemployment under 8% that they were being fundamentally dishonest with the American people?  And that 9.8% unemployment is better than their wildest dreams?

And don’t just say Vice President Joe Biden is an idiot and dismiss him.  He IS an idiot, of course.  But he is the official spokesidiot of the Obama Administration.

Having affirmed that significant public works-style projects would have been a massive improvement over the failed Obama stimulus, allow me to briefly point out a few other things that would have helped the nation restore confidence in the U.S. economy and the jobs that would have gone with it.

For one thing, tax breaks would have helped, but we didn’t get them.

Contrary to Democrat fluffery, there really weren’t “tax breaks” in the stimulus.  Rather, the people who got the “breaks” didn’t actually pay federal income taxes.  The “tax breaks” were really welfare breaks.  Lowering taxes stimulates more investment and more productivity by allowing investors to keep more of what they earn, rather than incentivizing them to shelter their money, which raising taxes invariably does.  Transferring money from the pockets of tax payers and giving it to those who didn’t pay federal income taxes – even if you euphemistically call it a “tax break” – simply doesn’t accomplish that goal.

Another thing that would have helped was targeting stimulus toward the businesses that actually do most of the hiring.

Small businesses which employ 20 or fewer workers are responsible for 50% of the jobs in this country.  And businesses defined as “small businesses” are responsible for nearly 3/4ths of the total jobs in the USA.

And what did small businesses get from the stimulus? Butkus.  The porn-loving National Endowment for the Arts actually got more stimulus funds than all the small businesses in the country combined.

If Democrats wanted to create jobs, they might have considered giving the money to businesses that actually created jobs, rather than to their politically connected liberal special interest groups.  Again, just sayin’.

It also would have helped if the stimulus had been something that actually helped more than it hurt.  The Congressional Budget Office, hardly a conservative bastion, reported that the stimulus bill would lead to a lower GDP 5 to 10 years out than if Congress had done absolutely NOTHING.  The enormous government spending will ultimately crowd out private investment which would have had a much higher chance of increasing GDP than the spending in the stimulus bill.